COLUMBIA  LIBRARIES  OFFSITE 

AVERY  FINE  ARTS  RESTRICTED 


AR01 498690 


COLUMBIA 
SPECTATOR 

•g      <g»  <$ 

FIFTY  YEARS 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


The  Columbia  Spectator. 

Published  Semi- Monthly  by  the  Students  of  Columbia  College. 


NEW  YORK  JULY  ist.  1877. 


No.  1. 


Board  of  Editors.  1877-78. 


S.  B.  Posd.  jo. 


Per  annum,  in  advance. 

Single  copies.      -      -      -      -      -      -    ■  5 ' 

Subscriptions  by  mail  thould  be  addressed  to 

Mr.  Wm.  F.  Moroax,  Treasurer 

614  Fifth  Avenue.  New  York. 
Etchanfe*.  contribution!,  and 
should  be  addressed  to  The  Collmsia  Spectator,  I 
Collet*.  New  York. 


IX  presenting  to  the  students  and  Inends  of  New 
York's  oldest  and  foremost  University,  the  first 
number  of  the  Columbia  Spectator,  the  editors  beg 
to  be  excused  from  am  formal  salutatory  or  enumer- 
ation of  the  plans  and  .mended  attractions  of  the  paper. 
The  pri-nary  objects  fir  which  the  latter  was  started 
have  been  set  forth  at  length  in  the  prospectus,  and 
need  not  he  reiterated  here,  while  as  to  the  success  of 
the  editors  m  attuning  these  objects,  they  are  very 
willing  to  allow  ea.h  number  of  the  piper  to  speak  for 
itself  and  to  be  ju  Jged  on  its  own  menu.  The  Spec- 
tator seeks  to  be  nothing  more  than  an  interesting 
and  instructive  L'niversny  pap-r.  more  "newsy"  and 
lighter  in  tone  thin  the  |venodic  its  which  have  hitherto 
flourished  to  well  at  Columbia,  anl  devoting  more  sp.v:e 
and  attention  than  these  to  the  School  of  Mines,  the 
Law  School  an  I  the  general  college  world.  These 
distinguishing  features  can.  of  course,  not  appear  v  ery 
distinctly  in  the  first  number. — coming  as  it  does  at  an 
inopportune  season,  and  being  intended  pnnc  palK  as 
a  general  sample  copy  — they  will,  however,  we  hope, 
become  sufficiently  apparent  in  the  coming  year. 
Concerning  other  lealures  and  plans  the  editors  wish 
only  to  prom.se  that:  on  their  pirt.  neither  labor  nor 
pains  will  be  spared  to  mike  the  paper  readable  ami 
worthy  of  the  support  of  Columbia  men.  —  thev  cannot, 
however,  close  without  pointing  out  to  the  litterthat 
this  support  is  an  in.lispensable  mMm  for  that  suc- 
cess which  the  editors  are  so  desirous  of  attaining. 


THE  support  which  we  ask  and  expect  is,  of  course, 
not  only  pecuniary  111  the  form  of  subscriptions,  but 
also  literary,  in  the  shape  of  frequent  contributions  to  our 
columns.  We  do  not,  indeed,  ask  for  extended  priie 
essays  or  elaborate  treatises.  What  we  do  desire, 
however,  is  letters  on  subjects  of  common  university 
interest,  light  sketches  of  travel  and  adventure,  poems, 
items  of  personal  news,  and  anecdotes.  AH  contribu- 
tions of  this  kind  will,  if  in  any  way  serviceable,  be 
heartily  welcomed  and  gladly  printed.  The  name  of 
the  wTiter  should,  however,  always  be  made  known  to 
at  least  one  of  the  editors— not  necessarily  for  publica- 
tion, but  as  a  guarantee  of  good  faith.  We  can  rarely 
notice  anonymous  contributions. 

ANOTHER  point  which  we  may  as  well  impress 
upon  our  readers  at  the  outset  is.  that,  under  no 
circumstances  will  the  SPECTATOR.directly  or  indirectly, 
serve  as  an  organ  or  assistance  to  any  party,  faction  or 
clique  in  what  is  usually  called  "class  politics."  The 
establishment  of  the  paper  w  as  kept  strictly  aloof  from 
all  considerations  of  this  kind,  and  its  subsequent  conduct 
shAlt  be  in  the  same  tenor.  Where  questions  arise, 
however,  either  out  of  the  petty  class-stnfes  or  from 
other  causes,  which  are  of  general  importance  to  the 
College  or  the  university,  and  on  which  their  may  be  a 
difference  of  opinion  among  the  students,  the  SPEC- 
T  ATOR  will  remain  independent,  but  not  neutral.  The 
editors  hope  to  have  decided  opinions  on  one  side  or 
I  the  other  of  such  questions,  according  to  their  individual 
sense  of  right,  and  they  will  certainly  express  their 
opinions  without  fear  or  favor,  not  hesitating,  in  any 
case,  to  call  a  spade  a  spade.  We  must  apologue  to 
our  readers  lor  dwelling  at  all  on  this  point,  but  the 
state  of  things  at  Columbia  is  this  day  such,  that  it  is  uf 
vital  importance  that  the  position  of  the  new  college 
paper  should  be  distinctly  understood.  While,  there- 
]  fore,  no  special  favors  are  asked,  none  will  be  given, 
and  we  hope  that  all  parties,  in  and  outside  of  college 
may  look  upon  the  Spectator  as  neutral  ground, 
above  those  unworthy  contentions  with  which  so  many 
of  our  college  classes  are  afflicted. 

THE  abolition  of  Class-diy  i>  a  genuine  "  Reform." 
For  veirs  the  Class-days  at  Columbia  were  very 
weakly  supported,  and  sank  into  insignificance  and  ridi- 
1  cuW  when  compared  with  similar  exercises  at  Harvard  or 
1  Yale.    The  fact  is,  Columbia  has  not  the  room  for  an 


Editorial  Page  of  the  First  Spectator 


Spectator's  Fifty  Years 


The  Story  of  the  Columbia  Spectator 
From  Its  Founding  in  1877 
to  the  Present  Time 


By 

THE  1927  MANAQINQ  BOARD 


Privately  Printed 
For  Spectator  Editors 


m3j 


The  1927  Managing  Board  is  deeply  in- 
debted to  Dr.  Robert  Arrowsmith  '82  and 
Samuel  Elmer  Murray  '28  for  their  valuable 
aid  in  the  preparation  of  this  book. 


Bracon  Press.  Inc.   -    1927   -   New  York  City 


FOREWORD 


It  was  my  good  fortune  to  enroll  as  a  Freshman 
in  Columbia  College  when  the  Columbia  Spectator 
was  completing  its  first  year  of  life.  It  certainly  was 
a  vigorous  infant.  It  united  in  exceptional  measure 
literary  cleverness  with  artistic  skill.  The  men  as- 
sociated with  its  conduct  were  among  the  cleverest 
then  in  college.  William  Bard  McVickar  of  the  Class 
of  1880,  whose  pencil  was  clever  in  high  degree,  con- 
tributed to  the  Spectator  of  those  early  years  with 
steady  frequency.  The  more  sober  and  conventional 
Acta  Columbiana  looked  upon  its  new  rival  at  first 
askance,  then  with  amusement,  and  finally  with  a 
desire  to  join  forces.  This  desire  was,  as  the  record 
shows,  shortly  fulfilled. 

The  various  undergraduate  journals  have  not  been 
improved  by  the  changes  of  the  years.  They  have 
steadily  imitated  ordinary  journalistic  methods  and 
aims,  and  have  thereby  largely  lost  those  character- 
istics of  charm  and  unique  readiness  to  reflect  under- 
graduate opinion  and  achievement  in  letters  and  the 
fine  arts  which  at  one  time  were  more  characteristic 
of  them.  Similarly,  the  old  literary  or  debating  so- 
cieties have  become  mere  names.    The  American  Whig 


and  Cliosophic  Societies  of  Princeton,  the  two  literary 
societies  established  in  the  18th  century  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  North  Carolina,  and  our  own  Philolexian 
and  Peithologian  Societies,  organized  in  the  very 
early  years  of  the  19th  century,  have  all  lost  the 
prominence  in  undergraduate  life  which  they  once 
enjoyed,  and  in  some  cases  have  become  mere  names. 

These  changes  are  but  one  form  of  its  vengeance. 
Tastes  and  ambitions  alter  with  the  years,  and  the 
modes  of  expressing  them  alter  likewise  to  keep  pace. 

A  complete  history  of  undergraduate  literary  activ- 
ity and  adventure  at  Columbia  would  show  a  many- 
sided  series  of  happenings  extending  over  a  half  cen- 
tury. Through  it  all  the  history  of  Spectator  runs 
like  a  thread  binding  the  rest  together  and  holding 
the  story  to  a  unity  of  impression  and  effect. 

The  Spectator  has  always  attracted  to  its  manage- 
ment students  chosen  from  the  ablest  and  most  com- 
petent of  the  undergraduate  company  of  their  day. 
It  has  performed  a  useful  and  an  interesting  service. 
We  must  all  hope  that  this  first  half  century  is  but 
one  of  the  series  which  will  lead  in  due  time  to  a 
real  millennium  of  the  Spectator. 

NICHOLAS  MURRAY  BUTLER. 


March  7,  1927. 
President's  Room, 
Columbia  University. 


SPECTATOR'S  FIFTY  YEARS 


SPECTATOR'S  FIFTY  YEARS 


HERE  can  be  nothing  novel  in  a  history  of  the 


X  growth  of  an  American  institution.  It  is  so  usual 
for  what  is  enormous  in  1927  to  have  been  insignifi- 
cant less  than  a  century  ago,  that  to  note  this  fact  in 
connection  with  college  journalism  is  both  uninterest- 
ing and  unnecessary.  And  to  emphasize  this  develop- 
ment is  to  miss  the  point. 

Nevertheless,  undergraduate  newspapers  and  mag- 
azines are  decidedly  valuable  as  an  indication  of  the 
character  of  American  colleges,  and  of  the  interests 
of  the  men  who  attend  them.  If,  in  themselves,  they 
are  frequently  to  be  discounted  as  immature,  and 
if  they  seem  to  show  a  complete  lack  of  progress  and 
can  only  point  to  a  mechanical  development,  they  are 
still  important  as  a  barometer  of  the  student  attitude. 

It  seems  desirable,  then,  to  consider  them  in  this 
light,  and  to  subordinate  any  consideration  of  their 
physical  growth.  For  Columbia's  publications  remain, 
and  will  always  remain,  of  a  single  age  though  they 
grow  monstrous  in  bulk.  That  moment  of  late  ado- 
lescence and  early  manhood,  that  inconsistent  mixture 
of  a  real  intellectual  interest  and  a  boyish  enthusiasm 
in  red  flares,  is  theirs.  They  are  rarely  older  than 
twenty-two  or  three  or  younger  than  eighteen. 

We  shall  find  Spectator  criticizing  the  curriculum 
of  the  college,  urging  a  fuller  intellectual  life  in  one 
breath,  and  beseeching  the  undergraduate  to  immerse 


himself  in  a  "pep-fest"  in  the  next.  For  the  college 
editor  there  will  seem  to  be  no  inconsistency  in 
furthering  the  work  of  the  Black  Avengers  and  in 
denouncing  the  lecture  system.  He  considers  the 
shape  of  the  Varsity  C  of  equal  importance  with  the 
method  of  examination. 

This  is  the  philosophy  which  the  story  of  Spec- 
tator's fifty  years  has  to  tell.  If  you  are  unsympa- 
thetic, you  will  call  it  a  warping  of  relative  values. 
If  you  have  a  complete  memory  of  college  days,  you 
will  realize  the  whimsicality  of  the  situation.  If  you 
are  in  college  you  will  probably  denounce  the  idiocy 
of  these  editors  when  they  are  "rah-rah"  and  their  in- 
competency when  they  are  intellectual.  But  this 
philosophy  is  our  book  and  we  shall  pass  over  the 
mechanical  back-ground  as  rapidly  as  possible. 

 1  o  

THE  tale  of  their  physical  growth,  at  Columbia 
and  elsewhere,  will  be  brief,  then,  and  subordi- 
nate. The  earliest  paper  of  which  we  have  record  is 
the  Dartmouth  Gazette,  founded  in  1800,  and  includ- 
ing Daniel  Webster  among  its  contributors.  Its  suc- 
cessor, The  Dartmouth,  is  the  oldest  of  existing  col- 
lege journals.  It  was  established  in  1839. 

At  the  time  of  Spectator's  origin  in  1877  there 
were  about  a  hundred  magazine-newspapers  of  the 
type  of  Acta  Columbiana  in  existence  and  about 
twenty-five  which  were  strictly  newspapers.  Almost 
all  of  these  had  risen  from  the  general  growth  of 
activities  during  the  decade  from  1865  to  1875.  The 
Yale  News  was  the  first  to  establish  itself  as  a  daily 
paper.    This  was  in  1878. 


Today  there  are  thirty-seven  colleges  which  publish 
daily  journals.  Some  of  these  have  Associated  Press 
or  United  Press  service.  The  Minnesota  Daily,  with  a 
circulation  of  ten  thousand,  may  be  compared  to  any 
small  city's  leading  paper.  The  older  Eastern  papers 
generally  restrict  themselves  to  college  news.  From 
the  point  of  view  of  circulation,  the  Brown  Daily 
Herald  is  the  smallest,  with  seven  hundred  readers. 
Spectator  has  a  circulation  of  two  thousand  five  hun- 
dred, and  this  may  be  considered  as  an  average  among 
the  intercollegiate  dailies. 

It  was  natural  that  the  first  publications  at  Colum- 
bia should  spring  from  the  two  literary  societies,  Phil- 
olexian  and  Peithologian.  For  these  were  the  only 
two  extra-curricular  activities  during  the  early  eigh- 
teen hundreds  which  were  actually  organized.  Philo- 
lexian  had  been  founded  in  1802,  Peithologian  four 
years  later,  and  by  1815  the  two  included  a  good 
majority  of  the  College  on  their  rolls.  As  literary 
societies,  the  practice  of  writing  became  a  part  of 
their  activity. 

So  the  first  indication  which  we  have  of  student 
publications  is  a  sheet  of  closely  written  foolscap — 
The  Philolexian,  especially  intended  to  be  read  before 
a  meeting  of  that  society.  It  died  at  birth  and  there 
were  none  of  the  additional  articles  which  were  to  re- 
invigorate  the  society.  The  Philolexian's  single  ap- 
pearance is  dated  February  26,  1815. 

Late  in  the  Fall  of  the  next  semester,  though,  other 
hands  seized  the  idea.  In  December,  The  Philolexian 
Observer  made  its  debut.  It  was  anonymously  edited 
and  appeared  at  more  or  less  regular  intervals  with 


about  twelve  issues  during  some  four  months.  It,  too, 
was  simply  a  hand-written  manuscript,  read  before 
the  society,  and  intended  "to  promote  the  interests  of 
the  Philolexian  Society." 

The  editor  carefully  avoided  the  temptation  of  ex- 
panding his  single  manuscript  into  a  magazine.  He 
seems  to  have  had  no  conception  of  an  undergraduate 
publication  as  such,  but  feared,  in  the  enlargement  of 
his  field,  the  production  of  a  work  necessarily  inferior 
to  the  great  national  magazines  which  were  existent. 
A  Studentibus  Studentibusque  was  not  of  his  day  and 
generation.  The  college  student  of  the  time  feared 
that  his  efforts  would  be  compared  with  the  best. 

Peithologian  was  less  hesitant  and  the  first  of  Col- 
umbia's magazines  was  published  two  years  later. 
Academic  Recreations  carried  contributions  of  all  col- 
lege undergraduates,  and  we  find  the  editors  gently 
refusing  to  accept  work  by  those  not  connected  with 
the  College. 

"Our  essays  are  not  confined  to  any  par- 
ticular branch  of  science,  but  include  the 
whole  of  polite  literature.  .  .  .If  we  can- 
not instruct,  we  will  endeavor  at  least  to 
amuse.  We  will  strive  to  keep  on  the  flowery 
path,  nor  deviate  into  the  thorny  and  rugged 
road.  We  will  enter  upon  the  vernal  fields 
and  blooming  meadows  of  classical  literature, 
and  draw,  from  the  sources  of  nature  and  of 
art,  profit  and  delight." 
Academic  Recreations  fulfills  its  promise,  inten- 
tional and  implied.   Unfortunately,  it  ended  with  the 
college  year  in  July,  1815. 


For  the  next  half-century  there  is  no  publication 
which  can  be  considered  as  a  forerunner  of  Spectator. 
The  Catalogue  appeared  during  this  time  and  passed 
from  the  hands  of  the  college  janitor  to  the  students 
to  the  Faculty.  Columbian  was  founded  in  1864  and 
has  continued.  An  intercollegiate  affair,  The  Univer- 
sity Quarterly,  had  an  associate  board  at  Columbia, 
and  carried  twelve  articles  by  men  from  the  College 
during  its  two  years  of  existence. 

This  seems  to  have  been  the  climax  of  undergrad- 
uate publications  which  were  granted  full  privileges 
and  full  criticism  in  the  world  at  large.  In  1868  Cap 
and  Gown,  Spectator's  lineal  predecessor,  was  estab- 
lished on  strictly  undergraduate  lines.  It  carried  a 
wonderful  miscellany  of  news,  editorials,  essays  and 
fiction,  correspondence  and  intercollegiate  notes.  But, 
taken  as  a  whole,  it  seems  rather  immature.  It  soon 
turned  its  attention  to  a  consideration  of  "The  New 
System"  in  college  administration,  which  would  radi- 
cally change  the  method  of  marking,  cutting  and  dis- 
cipline then  in  force.  A  compromise  plan  was  finally 
approved  by  the  Faculty.  It  is  significant  that  this 
question  of  the  college  organization  is  one  of  the 
first  to  be  considered  by  Columbia  undergraduates. 

The  next  movement  in  the  direction  of  Spectator 
came  in  the  Fall  of  1873.  Cap  and  Gown  found  itself 
unable  to  continue  with  a  subscription  list  of  college 
men  alone  and  overtures  were  made  to  secure  the  sup- 
port of  the  School  of  Mines.  Additional  editors  were 
chosen  from  this  department  and  Acta  Columbiana 
blossomed  forth.  Acta  was  simply  an  extension  of 
Cap  and  Gown.    It  was  as  much  of  a  magazine  as  it 


was  a  newspaper  and  seems  to  have  filled  satisfactor- 
ily the  need  for  such  publications. 

For  it  is  during  this  period  that  Columbia's  extra- 
curricular activities  discover  their  foundations.  Ath- 
letics, and,  in  particular,  intercollegiate  athletics  were 
getting  under  way.  In  1867  a  baseball  association  had 
been  formed  in  the  College  and  games  were  played 
with  New  York  University,  City  College,  Yale  and 
Princeton.  Track  had  its  beginnings  two  years  later. 
The  crew  was  among  the  first  four  to  finish  in  the  in- 
itial intercollegiate  regatta  in  1873.  And  a  year  later 
Columbia  won  the  same  event  at  Saratoga.  In  1876  an 
elaborate  boat-house  was  erected  on  the  Harlem  River. 

With  all  this  athletic  activity,  the  literary  societies 
were  weakening.  It  may  be  supposed  that  the  energy 
which  had  previously  been  expended  in  them  was 
turned  to  the  improvement  of  Acta  Columbiana.  For 
better  or  for  worse,  Columbia  men  were  rapidly  or- 
ganizing their  interests  into  more  definite  paths. 
Athletics  were  firmly  implanted  with  the  victory  of 
the  crew  at  Henley,  England,  in  1878.  The  Barnard 
Literary  Society,  founded  in  1877,  resulted  in  re- 
newed interest  in  Philolexian  and  Peithologian,  but 
all  three  confined  themselves  more  strictly  to  debat- 
ing than  had  been  done  in  the  past. 

It  was  in  this  atmosphere  of  sudden  growth  and  of 
a  general  enlargement  of  organized  activity  that  Spec- 
tator originated.  Acta  Columbiana,  under  John  B. 
Pine  '77  and  Francis  S.  Bangs  '78  was  well-enough 
liked  and,  indeed,  a  considerable  improvement  over 
the  past.  It  was  issued  only  once  each  month,  how- 
ever, and  when  dissension  arose  in  the  board  in  the 


Spring  of  1877,  the  possibility  of  a  bi-weekly  journal 
was  seen.  Frederick  W.  Holls  '78  broke  definitely 
with  the  new  editors  of  Acta  and  found  a  number  of 
prominent  undergraduates  ready  to  join  him  in  the 
new  project. 

There  may  have  been  an  element  of  fraternity  feel- 
ing in  the  separation,  for  the  rivalry  ran  high  at  the 
time  in  regard  to  the  Goodwood  Cup,  an  annual  award 
to  the  most  popular  man  in  the  Junior  Class.  But  it 
seems  probable  that  the  affair  was  for  the  most  part 
due  simply  to  a  dissatisfaction  with  the  selection  of 
the  new  editor  for  the  coming  year. 

The  first  hint  of  the  new  publication  appeared  in 
a  letter  published  in  the  Acta  Columbiana.  This  sug- 
gested that  "For  some  time  past,  the  desire  has  been 
expressed  by  students  and  friends  of  Columbia  for  a 
college  paper  which  should  appear  oftener  than  once 
a  month  and  which  should  be  more  a  'news'  paper 
than  was  possible  in  a  monthly  magazine." 

The  letter  went  on  to  tell  of  a  meeting  at  which 
Spectator  had  been  founded  and  Holls  elected  editor. 
Holls  had  hitherto  been  business  manager  of  the  Acta. 
J.  Fischer  '78  was  to  be  managing  editor  of  the  new 
publication.  The  board  included  J.  W.  Spalding  '78, 
exchange  editor;  C.  H.  Crowe  '78,  H.  G.  Paine  '79, 
news  editors;  William  B.  Parsons  '79,  sporting  edit- 
or; S.  B.  Pond  '79,  secretary,  and  W.  F.  Morgan  '80, 
treasurer.  The  note  was  rather  suggestively  signed 
X.  Y.  Z. 

In  its  prospectus,  this  new  Spectator  board  again 
emphasized  its  intention  of  producing  a  newspaper 
which  would  not  clash  with  Acta  Columbiana,  which, 


it  seemed  to  take  for  granted,  was  ready  to  become  a 
literary  magazine.  It  was  natural  that  the  editor  of 
Acta  and  his  associates  should  hold  even  more  strongly 
to  the  old  tradition  in  the  face  of  this  attempted  usurp- 
ation of  one  of  the  publication's  functions.  Their 
first  move  in  the  face  of  the  new  competition  was  to 
change  Acta,  first,  from  a  monthly  to  a  three-weekly 
affair,  and  then,  several  years  later,  it  was  issued 
every  two  weeks. 

Spectator's  first  editorial  explained  the  aim  of  the 
paper  in  terms  which  do  not  definitely  distinguish  its 
function  from  that  of  Acta  Columbiana. 

"The  Spectator  seeks  to  be  nothing  more 
than  an  interesting  and  instructive  Univer- 
sity paper,  more  'newsy'  and  lighter  in  tone 
than  the  periodicals   which   have  hitherto 
flourished  so  well  at  Columbia,  and  devot- 
ing more  space  and  attention  than  those  to 
the  School  of  Mines,  the  Law  School  and  the 
general  college  world." 
In  announcing  their  primary  interest  in  the  news 
of  the  College,  the  early  editors  of  Spectator  prob- 
ably had  the  best  of  intentions  and  indeed,  for  the 
first  few  issues  they  held  to  their  purpose.   But  the 
news  had  always  comprised  an   important  portion 
of  Acta's  editions.    Those  editors  backed  down  not 
at  all.  For  its  part,  Spectator  soon  broadened  its  field 
and  the  two  publications  carried  substantially  the 
same  matter. 

The  immediate  effect  of  Spectator  was  mainly  to- 
wards influencing  the  other  paper.  Under  the  lead- 
ership of  Harry  Thurston  Peck  '81,  Nicholas  Murray 


Butler  '82,  and  John  Kendrick  Bangs  '83,  Acta 
lived  the  most  vigorous  years  of  its  life  and  outdid, 
possibly,  any  similar  period  in  a  Columbia  publication. 
The  tone  of  the  paper  was  literary  as  much  as  jour- 
nalistic, but  the  whole  was  a  pertinent  comment  on  the 
College  of  the  time. 

During  Spectator's  first  year  the  University  and 
collegiate  characteristics  of  the  paper,  idealized  in  the 
initial  issue,  were  carefully  expanded.  A  column  en- 
titled "About  College"  contained  facetious  and  timely 
remarks  on  Campus  happenings.  "Music  and  Drama", 
which  is  now  paralleled  by  "Overtones"  and  "Suburbs 
of  Columbia,"  took  up  those  topics  in  a  critical  fash- 
ion. "Shavings",  the  father  of  the  present-day  "Off- 


Sketch  of  First  Spectator  Office,  Found  in  Philolexian  Record  of  1881 


Hour",  was  the  humorous  column.  Since  the  early 
days  other  columns  have  been  introduced.  "Stroller" 
occupies  the  "Off-Hour"  column  once  a  week  nowa- 
days, and  deals  with  many  things.  It  sometimes  offers 
satirical  remarks  on  College  fetishes  and  as  often 
strikes  a  sentimental  note.  It  frequently  notices  books 
and  other  matters  of  artistic  interest.  "Sport  in 
Short"  became  an  early  addition  to  the  growing  col- 
lection of  special  columns,  and  its  immediate  descend- 
ant, "Sidelines",  now  appears  once  a  week.  The 
first  issue  of  Spectator  contained  intercollegiate  notes 
and  these  were  an  important  portion  of  the  paper  for 
many  years.  Today  a  column  entitled  "Others  Say", 
made  up  of  editorial  comments  from  other  papers,  ap- 
pears at  irregular  intervals. 

In  its  early  years,  Spectator  contained  short  stories 
and  bits  of  poetry  contributed  by  the  students,  such 
as  the  "Philosophy  of  Flunks",  "The  Delights  of 
Trout  Fishing"  and  serial  stories  like  "Only  a  Vassar 
Girl — A  Tale  of  Moonshine,  Mystery  and  Misery," 
or  "Wilbur  of  Williams."  These  special  departments 
flourished  to  such  an  extent  that  additional  features 
embracing  other  schools  in  the  University  were 
started.  The  tendency  to  become  more  of  a  magazine 
than  a  newspaper,  that  we  have  already  noted,  was 
apparent  by  the  abundance  of  student  literary  effort. 
Small  line  cuts  illustrated  the  special  articles  and  full 
page  cartoons  on  subjects  as  often  irrelevant  as  timely 
were  introduced  in  1879.  But  perhaps  this  move- 
ment was  offset  in  part  by  the  publication  of  supple- 
ments and  extras  recording  the  results  of  football 
games  and  the  entries  for  track  meets. 


As  years  went  on  Spectator  continued  to  grow  in 
healthy  fashion.  From  eight  pages  at  the  start,  we 
find  a  twenty-eight  page  publication  five  years  later. 
More  frequent  full  page  cartoons  and  the  adoption  in 
1881  of  the  diagonal  blue  and  white  cover  tended  to 
liven  up  the  pages  and  give  the  magazine  a  more  mod- 
ern dress.  The  College  was  now  whole-heartedly  be- 
hind the  periodical,  and  Acta  Columbiana,  in  1885, 
was  forced  to  combine  with  its  eight-year-old  off- 
spring. 

Spectator  has  now  been  a  daily  newspaper  for  some 
twenty-five  of  its  fifty  years.  It  had  naturally  tended 
towards  this  end  from  the  very  beginning.  We  have 
seen  that  the  chief  reason  for  its  establishment  was 
the  possible  value  of  a  bi-weekly  sheet.  It  continued 
on  this  basis  for  exactly  twenty  years.  In  1897  it 
-B-.ii  x  


s, 


A  Local  Sir  John  Tenniel,  1878 


suffered  somewhat  of  a  slump  and  was  made  a  weekly 
in  an  attempt  to  put  it  on  its  feet  again.  But  it  con- 
tinued to  fail  in  its  function. 

Two  years  later,  under  the  editorship  of  A.  A. 
Fowler  '99,  a  complete  reorganization  was  affected. 
The  character  of  the  publication  as  a  newspaper  was 
more  definitely  determined  than  it  had  been  in  the 
past.  There  was  talk  of  making  Spectator  a  daily, 
but  the  board  contented  itself  in  this  regard  with  issu- 
ing the  paper  twice  a  week.  This  group  also  prepared 
the  scheme  of  publication  so  that  it  might  be  ready 
for  the  next  step  when  that  should  be  possible.  The 
time  came  in  the  Fall  of  1902  and  the  daily  system 
was  created.  It  is  now  customary  to  have  Saturday 
issues  only  during  the  football  season.  Throughout 
the  rest  of  the  school  year  Spectator  appears  five 
times  each  week. 

The  make-up  of  the  first  issues  must  be  remembered 
as  being  distinctly  different  from  that  of  the  Spec- 
tator of  today,  just  as  that  of  an  old  city  newspaper 
of  fifty  years  ago  differed  in  appearance  from  that 
which  it  presents  in  the  era  of  modern  journalism. 
In  the  first  place,  newspapers  were  much  more  like 
magazines  and  so  we  find  Spectator  a  sixteen-page 
pamphlet  about  eight  by  twelve  inches,  two  columns 
wide.  The  headlines  of  the  current  newspaper  were 
then  unknown  and  the  stories  were  separated  by  bold 
face  single  line  titles  of  one  or  two  words  blocked  off 
by  black  Lines.  This  typographical  layout  adequately 
reflected  the  dignified  style  of  the  early  issues. 

Later  this  style  was  abandoned  in  favor  of  a  small 
five-column  news-sheet.  At  the  present  time  Spectator 


appears  generally  in  a  four-page  issue,  with  six  col- 
umns to  the  page. 

Spectator's  attitude  toward  its  fellow  publications 
in  the  College  has  been  generally  a  critical  one.  From 
the  Eighties  up  to  a  decade  ago  Columbian  was  con- 
tinually criticized  for  its  many  late  appearances.  Dur- 
ing Jester's  leaner  years  that  magazine  has  been  un- 
mercifully flayed.  The  attitudes  taken  by  Spectator's 
editorials  may  be  characterized  as  fair  in  their  general 
tenor  but  as  tending  either  completely  to  ridicule  or 
whole-heartedly  to  praise  the  work  done  by  other  pub- 
lications. 

An  interesting  part  of  the  newspaper's  work  during 
1914  and  1915  was  the  various  bureaus.  Cut-rate 
tickets  were  sold  to  the  undergraduates.  And  a  regu- 
lar Travel  Bureau  was  instituted  which  arranged  spec- 
ial tours  for  the  students  to  the  various  other  colleges 
for  the  important  athletic  contests.  This  bureau  con- 
ducted a  tour  to  Bermuda  for  the  Christmas  holidays, 
(during  which  a  mid-ocean  number  of  Spectator  was 
published),  and  another  to  Old  Point  Comfort  for 
Easter.  A  special  car  was  chartered  for  a  trip  to  the 
Panama  Pacific  Exposition  in  1915  and  during  the 
following  summer  there  were  two  tours  arranged,  one 
to  the  Thousand  Islands  and  one  to  Alaska. 

This,  then,  is  the  story  of  Spectator's  technical  de- 
velopment throughout  its  fifty  years.  It  has  been  at 
times  a  University  paper  from  every  conceivable 
angle,  at  other  times,  a  college  journal,  and  at  the 
present  time  it  is  almost  entirely  concerned  with  the 
undergraduate  department  of  the  huge  institution  it 
serves. 


CONTRIBUTOR  to  "The  Bookman"  once  said, 


xY  "At  New  Haven,  it  is  a  common  and  true  saying 
that  the  Yale  News  Chairman  'runs  the  college'." 
While  no  such  extravagant  claims  are  made  for  the 
editor  of  Spectator,  it  nevertheless  remains  a  fact  that 
he  holds  one  of  the  most  influential  posts  in  College 
and  has  much  to  do  with  "running  the  College."  When 
he  crystallizes  that  indefinite  something  which  is 
vaguely  spoken  of  as  student  opinion,  he  has  prepared 
the  way.  He,  and  perhaps  many  of  his  successors, 
then  need  only  be  obnoxiously  insistent  in  order  to 
effect  the  change  that  is  being  proposed.  And  the 
glory  of  it  is  that  Spectator  is  considered  the  sole 
reason  for  the  reform,  whereas,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
is  merely  the  instrument. 

However,  when  the  editor  finds  that  his  views  are 
at  variance  with  those  prevalent  on  the  Campus,  his 
task  is  very  much  more  difficult.  He  may,  by  virtue  of 
his  advantageous  position,  present  sufficiently  strong 
arguments  to  win  the  student  body  to  his  side,  thus 
formulating,  instead  of  reflecting,  student  opinion. 
But,  much  more  likely,  he  may  simply  be  successful 
in  starting  a  controversy,  thereby  indirectly  crystal- 
lizing the  opposing  ideas  and  adding  strength  to  his 
adversaries'  cause. 

The  majority  of  the  changes  resulting  from  Spec- 
tator editorials  must  be  classified  in  the  first  group. 
The  editors  have  assumed  the  roles  of  stewards  and 
catered  to  Campus  whims,  using  their  columns  as  the 
medium  for  expression  of  student  opinion.  In  a  few 
cases,  however,  Spectator,  in  presenting  ideals  that 
emanate  solely  from  its  editorials,  has  been  successful 


in  attaining  them.  More  often,  student  feeling  has 
been  too  strong  to  change,  and  the  existing  order  has 
continued. 

 o  

be  used  because  of  the  very  nature  of  the  management 
of  the  paper),  that  different  editors  have,  from  time 
to  time,  made  startling  "discoveries"  that  had  already 

IT  is  rather  amusing  to  note,  in  beginning  a  review 
of  the  leading  editorial  policies,  (the  plural  must 
been  "discovered"  by  many  of  their  predecessors. 

We  can  dispose  of  the  more  important  of  these 
perennial  editorial  topics  in  a  few  words.  Soon  after 
the  paper  was  founded  the  matter  of  attendance  at 
class,  and  a  substitution  of  some  system  giving  the 
student  greater  freedom,  occupied  the  attenion  of  the 
editors.  Claims  were  made  that  the  requirement  that 
all  absences  be  explained  made  "liars"  out  of  the 
many  students.  Now,  fifty  years  later,  we  are  still 
haranguing  on  the  subject. 

One  short  year  after  Spectator  was  first  published, 
the  editor  was  apologizing  to  his  readers  for  the 
amount  of  space  devoted  to  athletics,  excusing  him- 
self on  the  ground  that  this  phase  of  undergraduate 
activity  was  injudiciously  the  most  important  part  of 
college  life.  Comments  of  this  nature  appear  at  regu- 
lar intervals  up  to  1926,  when  the  most  vehement  at- 
tack on  the  subject  appeared.  The  "Cast  Your  Vote" 
edit  is  still  running,  though  of  a  venerable  age.  "What 
Is  Happening  to  Columbia  Traditions?"  is  another 
fascinating  topic  which  is  discussed  at  regular  inter- 
vals. More  and  better  vociferation  at  athletic  con- 
tests has  been  an  annual  request  since  the  dim,  dark 


ages  of  the  nineteenth  century.  At  frequent  intervals 
throughout  Spectator's  fifty  years  the  editors  have  ad- 
monished those  professors  who  keep  their  classes  after 
the  closing  hour.  Attacks  on  library  service,  dormi- 
tory conveniences,  or  better,  inconveniences,  and  red 
tape  in  administration,  cannot  be  overlooked. 

"Attend  your  class  meeting,"  (or  your  mass  meet- 
ing), "Don't  forget  your  studies,  you  are  useless  if 
you  are  ineligible,"  (and  after  each  athletic  season) 
.  .  .  "Why  the  delay  in  awarding  letters?"  (and  be- 
fore each  gubernatorial  and  presidential  election).  .  . 
"Why  is  there  always  this  mess  about  the  voting  priv- 
ileges of  resident  students?  Let's  clear  up  the  situa- 
tion once  and  for  all."  All  of  these  topics  have  be- 
come almost  annual  features  in  the  editorial  columns. 

With  these  indubitable  signs  of  commendable  per- 
sistency before  us,  then,  as  significant  of  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  undergraduate  editorial  mind,  we  can 
pass  on  to  a  consideration  of  Spectator's  various  at- 
titudes. 

The  fifty  years  of  Spectator  have  seen  the  develop- 
ment of  perhaps  the  outstanding  characteristic  of 
modern  American  colleges.  As  athletics  and,  then, 
other  extra-curricular  activities,  became  more  and 
more  prominent  in  undergraduate  life  there  arose  a 
conception  of  college  spirit,  difficult  to  explain  except 
in  terms  of  extremes.  If  you  accept  it  whole-heartedly 
you  will  call  it  complete  subordination  of  one's  per- 
sonal interests  to  the  interests  of  the  college,  loyalty 
to  tlu-  group,  sincere  and  unselfish  patriotism.  If  you 
dislike  college  spirit  you  will  find  ready  logic  to  sug- 
gest that  it  is  a  selfish  desire  to  be  the  member  of  a 


prominent  group,  a  weakling's  satisfaction  in  the  in- 
direct glory  he  receives  from  the  deeds  of  his  fellows, 
at  best,  a  complete  misapprehension  of  the  function  of 
extra-curricular  activities. 

"Support  the  team"  is  not  the  least  common  plea  of 
Spectator  editors.  "Support  Spectator"  is  sometimes 
to  be  found.  "It  is  the  duty  of  every  freshman  to  be 
at  today's  football  practice  to  cheer  the  team."  "The 
lack  of  candidates  for  football,  (crew,  track  or  Varsity 
Show)  is  a  deplorable  reflection  on  the  College."  Suf- 
ficient has  been  quoted  to  show  the  outward  indica- 
tions of  the  idea. 

That  it  is  the  most  popular  conception  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  undergraduate  to  his  college  is  evident 
throughout  Spectator's  pages.  It  seems  to  have  had 
its  beginnings  in  the  time  of  Cap  and  Gown,  and  grew 
during  the  early  years  of  Acta  Columbiana.  In  its 
special  issue  celebrating  the  College's  one  hundred  and 
fiftieth  anniversary,  the  1904  managing  board  con- 
siders "Campus  Literature"  entirely  under  the  head- 
ing of  "Student  Journalism  as  a  Factor  in  the  Growth 
of  'College  Spirit'."  Its  point  is  that  "The  past  cen- 
tury of  student  journalistic  literary  endeavor  at  Co- 
lumbia has  accomplished  one  thing  at  any  rate  in  the 
life  of  the  students,  namely  a  welding  together  of  them 
into  one  body." 

 o  

THAT  ever  present  Columbia  editorial  cry  for  new 
buildings  started  with  the  first  issue  of  Spectator 
and  many  subsequent  editorials  contain  references  to 
the  desire  for  additional  room  and  the  completion  of 
buildings  then  in  the  process  of  construction.  One  of 


these,  which  was  the  first  to  be  opened  after  the  found- 
ing of  the  paper,  was  Anthon  Hall.  There  followed  in 
the  columns  the  traditional  congratulations  and  proph- 
ecies of  the  miracles  which  the  new  structure  would 
bring  to  pass  in  the  future  of  Columbia  College. 

While  the  first  mention  of  the  consideration  of  a 
new  and  larger  site  was  made  in  an  1891  issue  of 
Spectator,  the  need  of  room  for  expansion  was  prev- 
iously reflected  in  the  columns  of  the  paper  through 
the  growing  amount  of  criticism  of  the  49th  Street  lo- 
cation. 

The  year  1891,  then,  may  really  be  said  to  mark 
the  beginning  of  the  end  of  the  stay  of  Columbia  Col- 
lege at  this  site,  for  it  was  during  the  course  of  this 
college  year  that  steps  were  taken  to  secure  a  new  and 
more  adequate  home  for  the  future  University  which 
was  just  beginning  to  grow. 

Coming  as  a  Christmas  present  for  Columbia  stu- 
dents of  that  time  was  the  announcement  made  in  De- 
cember of  that  year  that  an  option  had  been  taken  on 
the  eighteen  acre  Bloomingdale  property  on  Morning- 
side  Heights,  which  now  constitutes  the  heart  of  the 
present  Campus.  This  step  was  the  result  of  the  plan- 
nings  of  some  fifteen  years.  The  option  taken  was 
closed  the  following  April,  thus  determining  the  site 
of  the  future  Columbia.  One  fault  with  this  deal,  and 
one  which  has  been  frequently  brought  up  in  Spectator 
editorials,  is  the  fact  that  more  of  the  surrounding 
property  was  not  bought  at  the  same  time.  A  few  of 
the  trustees  saw  this  future  necessity  but  the  feeling 
was  not  prevalent  enough  and  the  financial  backing 
was  not  on  hand  then  to  secure  the  greater  part  of 


Morningside  Heights  as  a  location  which  Columbia 
could  never  outgrow. 

A  lengthy  letter  written  by  Professor  Thomas 
Fiske  was  published  in  Spectator  during  this  historic 
year,  a  statement  which  aptly  summed  up  the  ques- 
tions uppermost  in  the  minds  of  all  Columbia  men  of 
that  time  and  the  underlying  ideas  of  which  served  as 
stimulation  for  editorial  controversy  for  the  next  ten 
years. 

Two  distinct  types  of  university  were  noted,  the 
metropolitan  and  the  rural.  The  writer  then  expressed 
the  opinion  that  Columbia,  situated  "in  the  greatest 
city  of  the  continent  ....  should  never  abandon  her 
rightful  inheritance,  and  strive  to  dispossess  imagined 
rivals  from  a  position  inaccessible  to  her.  Columbia 
will  belong,  always,  as  today,  to  the  class  of  metro- 
politan universities.  She  can  never  afford  to  devote 
to  dining  halls  and  dormitories  funds  available  for 
other  purposes." 

The  need  for  a  gymnasium  and  practice-field  on 
the  site  of  the  future  Campus  was  emphasized.  "These 
are  quite  as  necessary  as  in  the  case  of  the  country 
college."  Then,  the  writer  asks  how  such  a  plot  of 
ground  might  be  obtained,  (this,  it  must  be  noted,  was 
shortly  before  the  securing  of  the  option  on  the  Bloom- 
ingdale  property.)  The  city  should  be  persuaded  to 
set  aside  park  property,  Professor  Fiske  said,  and 
Columbia  in  return  should  make  arrangements  to  take 
in  the  students  of  City  College.  However,  before  the 
next  issue  of  Spectator  was  out  the  plans  for  moving 
to  Morningside  Heights  were  announced  by  President 
Low. 


It  was  conceded  that  five  years  would  see  Columbia 
on  the  Morningside  Campus  and  so  the  interim  was 
devoted  to  sounding  out  student  opinion  as  to  what 
should  be  the  status  of  the  College  in  the  new  loca- 
tion. One  of  the  most  insistent  of  the  problems  was 
that  expressed  above,  the  question  as  to  whether  Col- 
umbia was  to  become  a  dormitory  college  or  not. 

Dean  Henry  F.  Osborn  and  T.  Ludlow  Christie 
'92  strongly  urged  the  need  of  dormitories  at  the  new 
college  and  really  started  Spectator  on  the  campaign. 
Additional  letters  and  several  editorials  on  this  sub- 
ject appeared  during  the  Winter  of  1892-93.  The 
following  is  the  tone  of  the  appeals : 

"It  is  only  by  agitating  this  question  that 
any  movement  toward  an  actual  dormitory 
system  can  be  obtained.  Without  an  excep- 
tion, every  professor  and  student  inter- 
viewed by  us  has  been  unreservedly  and  un- 
conditionally in  favor  of  this  radical  step  at 
Columbia.  The  ties  of  interest  and  loyalty 
can  only  be  centered  by  such  a  move,  and 
without  interest  and  loyalty  the  college  is 
placed  on  a  par  with  the  office  or  counting- 
house." 

No  immediate  action  being  obtained,  another  cam- 
paign was  started  in  1894.  Again  the  agitation 
brought  no  results  and  the  matter  was  editorially 
dropped  until  early  in  1897,  when  the  proximity  of 
the  removal  to  the  new  site  evidently  brought  alarm, 
since  the  question  of  dormitory  policy  had  not  yet 
been  decided.  Late  in  1898,  Spectator  published  and 
supported  some  apparently  unofficial  plans  for  a  very 


luxurious  dormitory  on  the  Campus  which  would  have 
private  baths  for  each  room.  Evidently  the  over- 
elaborateness  of  the  proposal  caused  its  death.  Presi- 
dent Low  had  reported  previously  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  have  dormitories  and  that  they  should  be 
built  on  the  Green,  which  would  ultimately  become  the 
center  of  student  life. 

In  the  Fall  of  1899,  the  official  plans  for  the  first 
dormitory  were  released.  This  was  to  be  located  on 
Amsterdam  Avenue  below  116th  Street.  However, 
work  was  delayed  and  the  original  plans  were  altered 
somewhat  during  the  next  few  years.  Finally,  six 
years  later,  Spectator  chronicled  the  opening  of  Hart- 
ley and  Livingston  Halls,  the  "most  complete  resi- 
dence halls  of  any  university  in  the  country."  Spec- 
tator could  now  drop  the  subject  for, 

"The  completion  of  Hartley  and  Living- 
ston Halls  marks  the  realization  of  one  of 
the  fondest  hopes  of  Columbia  and  the  be- 
ginning of  a  new  epoch  in  the  history  of  the 
University;  for  today,  for  the  first  time  in 
its  long  existence,  does  Columbia  offer  to  its 
students  the  advantages  of  a  resident  univer- 
sity." 

Now  that  Columbia  had  moved  from  its  so-called 
temporary  quarters  at  49th  Street,  which  had  been 
its  home  for  forty  years,  the  period  of  expansion  be- 
gan for  the  University. 

The  graduate  schools  gradually  submerged  the  Col- 
lege, and  the  College  began  to  complain.  Spectator 
reflected  this  feeling  of  discontent,  and  in  1897  began 
to  plead  for  a  recitation  hall  which  would  serve  as  a 


home  for  the  undergraduate  department.  Numerous 
editorials  resulted  in  the  turning  over  of  East  Hall  to 
the  College.  But  East  Hall  was  rather  small  for  a 
growing  organization,  and  the  undergraduate  division 
had  to  spread  beyond  its  walls.  The  College  became 
dissatisfied  once  more.  Beginning  in  1903  Spectator 
at  frequent  intervals  reminded  the  trustees  of  the  need 
for  an  adequate  College  Hall.  When  classes  began  in 
that  year  and  it  was  learned  that  contracts  for  the 
new  Chapel  and  the  School  of  Journalism  had  been 
let,  the  editor  commended  the  University  for  its  pro- 
gress, but  said  "we  still  have  no  College  Hall"  and 
urged  speedy  action  on  that  project. 

That  Columbia  College  was  suffering  through  lack 
of  a  suitable  building  was  the  frequently  expressed 
opinion  of  Spectator  throughout  the  Spring  of  the 
following  year.  The  necessary  scattering  of  college 
men  in  various  buildings  resulted  in  a  break-down  in 
spirit  and  unity,  declared  Spectator.  However,  it  was 
not  until  the  following  Fall  that  the  real  campaign 
began.  On  October  28,  1904,  when  Spectator  issued 
an  elaborate  number  commemorating  the  Sesqui-cen- 
tennial  anniversary  of  the  founding  of  King's  College, 
in  its  editorial  columns  it  declared: 

"It  must  be  incredible  to  the  Alumni  of 
the   Sixties,  Seventies,  and  Eighties  who 
come  across  the  continent  to  attend  these  ex- 
ercises that  there  is  no  hall  for  that  school  to 
which  the  University  owes  its  growth." 
Without  the  College,  the  University  would  be  an 
imperfect  institution,  it  goes  on  to  say.  An  adequate 
home  is  essential,  and  then  in  capitals,  "COLUMBIA 


MUST,  THEREFORE,  HAVE  A  COLLEGE 
HALL."  This  last  sentence  proved  to  be  the  Carth- 
ago delenda  est  of  Spectator  for  the  next  five  months. 
During  this  period  Spectator  either  quoted  figures  on 
the  College's  growth,  pointed  to  the  remarkable  ad- 
vances made  in  other  divisions  of  the  University,  or 
merely  repeated  its  observations  on  the  inadequacy  of 
East  Hall,  and  then  ended  with  its  now  familiar  sen- 
tence. 

The  first  hint  of  success  in  its  campaign  came  after 
the  April  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  when 
President  Butler  announced  that  the  ground  had  been 
tested  on  the  site  for  the  new  hall,  but  that  it  was 
"impossible  to  make  a  definite  statement.  .  .  .,"  how- 
ever, .  .  .  we  shall  all  be  bitterly  disappointed  if 
we  are  not  able  to  begin  work  upon  College  Hall  be- 
fore Commencement  Day."  Finally,  on  May  2,  1905, 
one  of  the  numerous  new  eras  in  Columbia's  history 
began,  according  to  the  editorial  of  that  date,  for 
black  headlines  all  over  the  front  page  announced 
that  an  anonymous  donor  had  given  $500,000  to  erect 
a  home  for  the  College.  This  was  to  be  called  Ham- 
ilton Hall  and  would  be  placed  on  the  College  Quad- 
rangle, next  to  Hartley  and  Livingston  Halls,  then 
in  the  process  of  completion. 

In  February,  1907,  when  Hamilton  Hall  was 
opened  for  class  work,  Spectator  published  a  Hamil- 
ton Hall  number  and  said  editorially  that  the  pres- 
ence of  the  new  building  would  result  in  the  unifica- 
tion of  the  undergraduates  and  the  growth  of  college 
spirit. 

As  extra-curricular  activities  grew  in  importance, 


office  space  for  the  various  undergraduate  enterprises 
became  necessary.  The  University  recognized  this 
fact  and  assigned  small  places  here  and  there  to  the 
activities.  However,  soon  after  the  removal  of  the 
University  to  the  present  location,  the  growing  need 
for  a  Student's  Hall  received  attention  intermittently 
in  the  editorial  columns. 

At  first  Spectator  suggested  that  the  brick  building 
on  the  Southwest  corner  of  the  main  property,  then 
occupied  by  the  superintendent  of  the  College  and 
later  by  the  Faculty  Club  until  it  was  finally  torn 
down  to  make  way  for  the  School  of  Business,  be 
turned  over  to  the  activities.  This  plan  was  finally 
given  up  at  the  suggestion  of  President  Low  when 
he  felt  that  if  the  activities  obtained  this  inadequate 
building,  it  would  be  much  longer  before  they  could 
have  anything  better. 

The  temporary  solution  was  the  donation  of  West 
Hall  to  the  activities  and  the  book  store.  This  build- 
ing which  was  immediately  next  to  Earl  Hall  on  the 
north,  served  as  the  home  of  student  organizations 
until  190G. 

Then,  in  April,  Spectator  noted  that  old  East  Hall, 
then  used  for  the  College  recitations,  would  be  va- 
cated  when  Hamilton  Hall  was  completed.  Since 
South  Hall  has  been  turned  over  to  the  Faculty,  why 
not  give  East  Hall  to  the  undergraduate  activities, 
was  Spectator's  question.  A  few  days  later  an  editor- 
ial objected  strenuously  to  the  announcement  that  the 
hall  would  be  turned  over  to  the  School  of  Philosophy. 
However,  the  authorities  did  finally  relent  and  turned 
most  of  the  hall  over  to  the  activities. 


No  further  need  for  a  Students  Hall  was  felt  very 
keenly  until  March,  1920,  when  the  cudgels  were 
again  taken  up  in  its  behalf.  Interest  lagged,  how- 
ever, and  we  find  only  sporadic  references  to  it  for 
the  next  two  years.  Then  there  appeared  an  editorial 
on  the  first  page  pleading  for  a  Students  Hall  and 
asking  for  the  reservation  of  South  Field  for  the  Col- 
lege. 

Spectator  pointed  out  that  South  Field  itself  had 
been  acquired  through  the  agitation  in  the  paper  in 
1900  and  says  further  that  it  wants 

"A  Students  Hall  with  a  grill  room,  a  sort 
of  College  hangout,  but  no  Commons  fre- 
quented by  our  present  fellow-classmates 
from  the  lower  East  Side.  ...  A  suitable 
suite  for  the  Athletic  Offices.    A  less  dis- 
agreeable home  for  the  publications.  .  .pos- 
sibly a  University  press  in  the  basement.  A 
Reception  Hall  where  one  may  bring  a  prep 
school  man  with  pride  and  say  'This  is  Col- 
umbia College.  .  .  .  ,  We  need  to  be  rid  of 
intruders:    trespassers,    women  students, 
graduate    students,    extension    students — 
Keep  out;  this  is  Columbia  College!" 
Little  more  was  heard  from  the  editors  about  the 
Hall  until  in  May,  1924,  a  front  page  editorial  en- 
titled "Students  Hall — A   Mirage?"  appeared  and 
aroused  the  Campus  again  to  a  sense  of  its  importance : 
"We  can  show  visitors  to  our  College 
where  we  study  and  where  we  sleep;  but 
what  of  the  question  about  where  we  eat, 
where  we  congregate,  and  where  we  conduct 


our  activities?    At  that  point  Columbia  men 
grow   embarrassed   and   silent.    On  being 
pressed  they  have  to  admit  that  the  sole  din- 
ing hall  of  the  University  is  the  bizarre  and 
unattractive  Commons;  that  crowded,  creak- 
ing East  Hall  is  the  only  roof  for  our  under- 
graduate activities;   and  that  there   is  no 
place  set  aside  for  us  to  talk  together  and 
to  meet  socially." 
The    editorial    ended    with        .  .  and  Spectator 
echoing  undergraduate  opinion,  calls  for  the  building 
of  Students  Hall  at  once."    It  was  reprinted  in  full 
two  weeks  later  "in  response  to  numerous  requests." 

In  December  of  the  same  year  the  plans  for  Stu- 
dents Hall  were  announced,  but  Spectator  seized  upon 
the  fact  that  no  definite  date  had  been  set  for  its 
erection  and  said  in  part: 

".  .  .  .although  it  is  pleasant  to  find  that  the 
authorities  have  begun  drawing  up  plans  for 
the  structure,  Spectator  feels  that  the  stu- 
dent body  is  entitled  to  far  more  than  blue- 
prints. The  Campus  should  have  the  actual 
Students  Hall,  and  that  immediately  .... 
.  .  .  .Other  members  of  the  Morningside 
community, — past  or  present — join  this 
daily  in  a  driving  anxiety  that  such  a  build- 
ing be  forthcoming  at  once;  the  Alumni 
News  only  last  week  editorialized  upon  the 
situation.  Spectator  reiterates:  a  Students 
Hall  is  Columbia's  greatest  need.  .  .  ." 
A  series  of  statements  by  prominent  Campus  men 
was   published,  beginning  with   a   letter   from  the 


football  captain  and  including  the  leaders  in  other 
activities,  Alumni  and  many  of  the  Faculty. 

Another  front  page  editorial  under  the  caption: 
"Build — but  Build  Now"  followed  soon  after  and  the 
next  day  it  was  announced  that  the  erection  of  John 
Jay  Hall  would  only  be  a  matter  of  time  and  a  short 
time,  too. 

"Thus,  within  the  near  future,  the  College 
will  possess  for  the  first  time  since  its  found- 
ing in  1754,  all  the  components  of  an  under- 
graduate center:  class  rooms,  dormitories, 
an  athletic  field,  and  finally,  dining  rooms, 
lounges  and  activity  quarters.    In  contem- 
plation of  this  delightful  situation,  Specta- 
tor pauses  for  words — it  is  splendid." 
Mention  must  be  made  in  reviewing  the  part  that 
Spectator  has  had  in  the  erection  of  buildings  at 
Columbia,  that  a  long  line  of  editors  has  urged  in 
vain  the  completion  of  University  Hall.    After  refer- 
ring frequently  to  the  uncompleted  building  in  the 
earlier  years  as  the  "Campus  eyesore,"  a  brief  cam- 
paign came  in  1909,  when  Spectator  persistently  re- 
minded the  University  of  the  necessity  for  the  hall. 
One  naive  suggestion  made  the   following  year  is 
worthy  of  note.  Spectator  urged  all  students  to  drop 
hints  to  wealthy  friends  and  then  send  these  names 
to  President  Butler  so  that  he  might  follow  up  the 
leads  with  appeals  for  funds. 

The  most  intensive  "Complete  University  Hall" 
drive  began  in  September,  1914.  It  was  aided  for  a 
while  by  the  destruction  of  the  hall  by  fire,  and  it  was 
pointed  out  in  Spectator  that  as  long  as  the  building 


had  to  be  rebuilt,  it  might  as  well  be  done  in  its  en- 
tirety. The  movement  was  frustrated,  however,  and 
the  hall  was  rebuilt  for  temporary  accommodation 
only.  It  has  since  been  among  the  most  fruitful 
sources  of  agitation  in  the  editorial  menage. 

It  is  hard  to  tell  when  a  student  editor  will  be 
prompted  to  start  a  movement  for  new  structures,  or 
what  it  will  be  that  prompts  him.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
when  he  sees  the  need,  or  apparent  need  for  additional 
buildings,  he  will  gather  his  data  and  insistently 
throw  it  before  the  authorities  until  he  is  certain  that 
he  has  done  his  part. 


ROBABLY  one  of  the  most  drastic  actions  ever 


A.  taken  by  a  University  in  connection  with  its  ath- 
letic program  occurred  in  the  Fall  of  1905,  when 
Columbia  abolished  football.  In  the  early  days  of  the 
gridiron  sport,  Spectator  had  varied  in  its  attitude. 
At  times  the  game  was  accorded  every  praise,  but  sev- 
eral seasons  came  along  in  which  lack  of  interest 
and  insufficient  material  resulted  in  losing  teams. 
During  these  barren  years  the  paper  suggested  its 
abolition.  From  1881  until  1897  the  sport  had  to  be 
discontinued  because  of  the  lack  of  a  playing  field. 
However,  in  the  late  Nineties  and  up  to  1905  the 
teams  were  highly  successful  and  the  game  took  on 
new  life. 

Rumors  that  all  was  not  well  were  prevalent  in  the 
late  Fall  of  1905.  Spectator  secured  an  interview  with 
Francis  S.  Bangs,  chairman  of  the  University  Com- 
mittee on  Athletics  and,  speaking  unofficially,  he  de- 
clared that  "football  under  existing  rules  and  pre- 


vailing  practices  is  brutal  and  abominable.  ...  I 
I  would  stop  it.  .  .  ."  President  Butler  agreed  with 
these  sentiments.  Speaking  editorially.  Spectator  said 
that  the  undergraduates  and  the  faculty  were  opposed 
to  abolition  of  the  game  but  "every  sane  person  must 
realize  that  radical  changes  are  necessary  to  eliminate 
the  faults  which  are  now  only  too  apparent." 

Coming  as  a  complete  surprise  to  the  College,  the 
University  Committee  on  Student  Organizations  an- 
nounced the  next  day,  through  the  medium  of  large 
black  headlines  in  Spectator,  that  the  Football  Asso- 
ciation was  to  be  disbanded  at  the  end  of  the  year 
and  passed  resolutions  urging  that  the  University 
Council  prohibit  the  game  at  Columbia.  Spectator 
expressed  its  astonishment  at  the  action  and  declared 
that  the  University  should  have  recommended  changes 
to  the  Rules  Committee,  "but  to  absolutely  abolish  the 
game  is  not  necessary  and  uncalled  for.  The  solution 
of  the  football  problem  lies  in  constructive  and  not 
destructive  action."  A  mass  meeting  should  be  called 
"and  while  we  do  not  expect  that  such  a  meeting 
would  have  any  more  effect  than  appeals  of  the  stu- 
dents usually  meet  with  at  Columbia,  it  would  be  valu- 
able in  helping  crystallize  student  sentiment  on  the 
subject." 

During  the  next  few  weeks  a  series  of  mass  meet- 
ings were  held  and  Spectator's  columns  were  flooded 
with  communications  from  students  and  alumni  con- 
demning the  "hasty  action"  of  the  Council.  Its  edi- 
torials, in  the  meanwhile,  vehemently  attacked  the  pol- 
icy adopted  by  the  authorities.  As  a  result  of  the  agi- 
tation a  student  petition  was  presented  the  Faculty, 


calling  for  reconsideration  of  the  whole  affair,  a  re- 
quest which  was  praised  as  "wise  and  judicious." 
When  the  proper  officials  refused  this,  Spectator  urged 
another  football  meeting  for  further  student  action. 
This  was  held  and  more  resolutions  of  a  similar  nature 
were  presented  to  the  Council. 

Finally,  on  December  21,  Spectator's  famous  fu- 
neral number  was  issued  in  which  it  was  announced 
that  final  action  by  the  Council  had  definitely  abol- 
ished the  game.  Heavy  black  borders  and  thick  inter- 
columnar  lines  gave  the  paper  a  strangely  sombre  ap- 
pearance. Thus,  "the  most  crushing  blow  ever  dealt 
undergraduates"  was  taken.  Spectator  went  on  to  say 
that  "it  is  evident  from  the  resolutions  that  other 
sports  will  in  turn  be  attacked  in  the  apparent  desire 
to  build  up  a  German  or  English  institution  on  Ameri- 
can soil."  Black  borders  featured  the  make-up  of  the 
paper  again  the  next  day. 

The  following  Fall  saw  a  renewal  of  the  discussion 
in  the  editorial  columns.  From  November  far  into 
January  streamers  such  as  "FOOTBALL  MUST  BE 
RESTORED  AT  COLUMBIA"  were  run  at  the  top 
of  the  front  page.  When,  in  1907,  the  Committee  on 
Student  Organizations  gave  Student  Board  the  power 
to  conduct  interclass  football  contests,  Spectator  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  the  committee  was  shifting 
the  responsibility  in  a  "cowardly"  way.  After  Stu- 
dent Board  authorized  it,  a  game  between  the  Sophs 
and  the  Frosh  occasioned  the  turning  over  of  half  the 
front  page  to  the  report  and  pictures  of  the  game. 
Another  season  of  agitation  saw  no  results. 

In  1910  Spectator  partly  changed  it  attitude  to- 


wards  the  situation.  While  continuing  in  its  plea  for 
restoration  of  intercollegiate  football,  it  spoke  of  in- 
terclass  football  as  a  "stumbling  block  to  our  Varsity 
teams"  and  urged  concentration  on  the  more  import- 
ant sports.  After  several  years  without  intramural 
competition,  Spectator  once  again  turned  about  face 
and  in  1914  was  instrumental  in  staging  a  game  be- 
tween the  upperclassmen  and  the  representatives  of 
the  lower  classes.  Two  rallies  were  held  during  the 
year  and  three  hundred  students  pledged  themselves 
to  report  for  practice  if  the  game  was  restored.  Dur- 
ing the  winter  there  was  a  whole  series  of  editorials  on 
the  subject  with  pictures  on  the  front  page  of  past 
games. 

Success  was  finally  achieved  on  April  21,  1915, 
when  football  was  restored  by  the  University  Council. 
Spectator,  a  paper  noted  for  its  conservative  make-up, 
blazed  forth  with  a  double-deck  streamer  across  its 
front  page.  The  game  was  to  be  on  trial  for  five 
years,  however,  and  as  long  as  the  numerous  restric- 
tions imposed  on  it  lasted,  it  was  impossible  for  it  to 
become  the  huge  spectacle  it  had  been  when  it  was 
abolished. 

Nevertheless,  something  had  been  gained,  and  Spec- 
tator jubilantly  and  rather  dramatically  declared  that 
"the  restoration  marks  the  beginning  of  a  new  era  in 
Columbia  life."  The  last  chapter  in  this  struggle  was 
written  when  all  restrictions  were  removed  in  the  Fall 
of  1919  and  Columbia  once  more  took  her  place  as  a 
contestant  for  the  mythical  football  championship. 

Probably  the  greatest  of  all  the  campaigns  waged 
by  Spectator  in  its  fifty  years  have  been  related  to 


athletics.  The  one  which  was  started  late  in  the  Nine- 
ties and  continued  to  recent  years  to  obtain  for 
Columbia  an  athletic  field  of  suitable  size  had  as  its 
first  objective  the  acquisition  of  South  Field,  then 
when  this  was  done,  turned  its  efforts  to  the  erection 
of  an  immense  River  Stadium  on  land  reclaimed  from 
the  Hudson  River,  from  116th  to  120th  Street,  and 
finally  resulted  in  the  purchasing  and  equipping  of 
Baker  Field. 

Editorials  of  the  following  type  gained  for  Spec- 
tator its  first  desire  soon  after  the  University  had 
moved  to  the  Heights: 

"If  Columbia  does  not  acquire  this  land  it 
will  surely  be  used  for  dwellings  of  one  kind 
or  another,  and  perhaps  for  business  pur- 
poses.   The  University  will  have  to  have  it 
some  day,  even  if  the  buildings  on  it  have  to 
be  bought  and  then  pulled  down  to  make 
room  for  college  buildings.  The  sooner  these 
facts  are  realized  by  Columbia  men  the  bet- 
ter.    In  short,  as  we  have  previously  re- 
marked, we  want  South  Field." 
Later,  in  the  issue  of  January  30,  1906,  Spectator 
records  that  the  President  had  appointed  a  committee 
to  investigate  the  possibility  of  securing  for  the  col- 
lege another  field,  in  response  to  many  editorials  that 
had  appeared  in  Spectator  during  the  preceding  few 
years.    The  committee  reported  favorably  on  March 
5th,  and  a  half-page  sketch  of  the  new  River  Stadium 
was  published.     The  stadium  was  to  be  erected  on 
land  filled  in  for  a  short  distance  from  the  shore  of 
the  river,  and  was  to  have  two  athletic  fields  as  well 


as  the  stadium  and  welcoming  pier.  Spectator  lauded 
the  announcement  as  the  culmination  of  the  work  of 
many  student  editors  and  declared  it  to  be  a  perfect 
arrangement,  as  it  would  give  the  College  one  of  the 
largest  stadiums  in  the  country,  seating  60,000,  and 
would  practically  be  on  the  Campus. 

Before  the  month  was  out  a  civic  organization  had 
proposed  to  set  aside  the  tract  of  land  along  the  river 
on  which  the  field  would  be  located,  and  to  make  it  a 
public  park.  The  suggestion  was  received  with  some 
acclaim  but  nothing  was  ever  done  about  it. 

On  April  24th  of  the  same  year  the  official  act  was 
passed  by  the  New  York  State  legislature,  authorizing 
Columbia  University  to  build  the  stadium  on  land  re- 
covered from  the  river.  Two  years  later,  the  sanction 
of  the  city  had  been  received,  and  with  all  legislative 
bars  down,  Spectator  lent  support  to  the  plan  that 
the  undertaking  be  completed  in  time  for  the  Hudson- 
Fulton  Centennial  Celebration  planned  for  the  next 
year.  The  stadium  was  to  have  a  water  gate-way  of 
nations  in  this  new  proposal. 

Reactionary  tendencies  set  in,  however,  and  we  next 
find  the  editor  advocating,  in  December,  1908,  the 
construction  of  a  stadium  on  South  Field,  as  it  was 
believed  that  the  River  Stadium  would  be  too  expen- 
sive. A  year  passed  and  another  reversal  in  policy 
comes,  with  the  paper  again  supporting  the  original 
project.  In  1912  a  new  plan  was  proposed  by  which 
the  Robert  Fulton  Memorial  Association,  the  City  of 
New  York  and  the  University  were  to  cooperate  in 
building  the  stadium.  The  editorials  enthuse  over 
this  newest  scheme. 


From  1912  until  1916  little  is  said  about  the  sub- 
ject, but  in  1916  a  victorious  football  team  fired 
student  interest  and  agitation  for  the  stadium  again 
began,  only  to  die  away  with  the  growing  importance 
of  the  World  War  and  consequent  chaotic  conditions. 
The  editorial  boards  changed  frequently  as  the  mem- 
bers resigned  to  enlist.  Small  wonder  it  is,  then,  that 
interest  in  the  River  Stadium  was  dormant,  if  not 
entirely  dead. 

In  the  Fall  of  1920  a  vigorous  campaign  was  insti- 
tuted with  editorials  appearing  on  the  front  page. 
The  Alumni  News  joined  in  heartily,  reprinting  the 
editorials  and  giving  every  assistance  to  Spectator  in 
its  campaign.  Feeling  ran  high,  and  after  two  weeks, 
committees  on  the  legal  and  engineering  aspects  of 
the  project  were  appointed. 

The  reports  of  these  committees  were  discouraging, 
for  the  legal  committee  found  that  under  the  charter, 
Columbia  would  have  no  prior  claim  to  the  use  of  the 
field,  and  the  city  might  at  any  time  decide  to  welcome 
a  visiting  potentate  at  the  same  time  that  a  football 
classic  was  scheduled.  But  the  crushing  blow  was 
dealt  when  the  engineering  committee  reported  that 
the  cost  of  the  stadium  had  risen  from  a  paltry 
$1,000,000,  the  estimate  at  the  time  the  charter  was 
granted  in  1906,  to  over  $5,000,000.  After  a  careful 
investigation  of  all  available  facts,  the  committee 
unanimously  decided  that  the  Dyckman  tract  was  the 
one  which  was  the  next  best  choice,  an  option  on  it 
was  taken  and  the  property  now  known  as  Baker  Field 
finally  secured.  Besides  the  football  stadium,  the  new 
project  was  to  include  a  baseball  diamond,  seats  for 


7,000,  a  track  with  ampitheatre  for  10,000,  20  tennis 
courts  and  a  huge  Club  House. 

Twenty  years  ago  student  managers  were  in  charge 
of  the  various  athletic  teams.  The  non-athletic  activi- 
ties were  responsible  only  to  themselves.  When,  in 
1909,  Student  Board  formulated  plans  for  a  general 
Athletic  Association,  Spectator  began  a  drive  for  mem- 
bership and  necessary  funds.  When  it  was  finally 
established  in  the  Fall  of  that  year,  this  event,  too, 
was  hailed  as  a  turning  point  in  Columbia  history. 
But  the  non-athletic  activities  felt  that  they  too 
needed  something  of  the  sort.  King's  Crown  had  been 
organized  in  1902  as  a  society  "to  bring  together  all 
students  of  Columbia  College  in  a  bond  of  friendly 
union  with  the  purpose  that  there  may  be  realized  that 
homogeneity  and  cooperation  that  is  necessary  to  the 
student  body."  However,  in  1912  it  had  become  prac- 
tically extinct.  Spectator  urged  that  it  be  entirely  re- 
organized so  as  to  have  complete  charge  of  all  non- 
athletic  activities.  After  considerable  discussion  and 
numerous  editorials  seeking  to  arouse  interest  and 
gain  members,  the  revised  organization  was  born  in 
October,  1913. 

Beginning  in  1921,  Spectator  carried  editorials 
from  year  to  year  at  infrequent  periods  on  the  desir- 
ability of  standardizing  the  Varsity  letter.  These  con- 
tinued until  in  1927,  Student  Board  considered  the 
question  and  proposed  several  changes  in  the  type  of 
letter,  which  would  abolish  the  round  "C"  and  estab- 
lish merely  two  different  sized  block  letters,  one  for 
the  major  sports  and  another  for  the  others.  This  was 
subsequently  passed  by  the  proper  committee. 


Football,  thriving  wonderfully  since  the  restrictions 
were  removed  in  1920,  soon  recovered  the  place  it  had 
occupied  in  1905.  "Beat  Cornell"  campaigns,  run  by 
Student  Board  and  Spectator,  were  held  almost  an- 
nually, but  without  the  desired  result  until  the  long- 
hoped-for  victory  came  in  1927,  after  it  had  been 
decided  not  to  hold  the  campaign.  In  1925  we  find 
Spectator  in  sympathy  with  the  Haverford  News, 
which  had  protested  against  games  between  unevenly 
matched  teams  on  the  grounds  that  the  smaller  col- 
lege had  to  sacrifice  its  team  in  order  to  let  the 
stronger  teams  have  a  little  practice  before  their  real 
contests.  These  sentiments  were  echoed  in  the  Fall  of 
1926  when  a  series  of  editorials  took  up  the  whole 
question  from  the  standpoint  of  ideal  sportsmanship. 
Spectator  expressed  the  opinion  that  if  only  teams  of 
equal  calibre  did  meet,  this  ideal  would  be  attained 
but  a  necessary  let-down  in  intensity  of  playing  would 
result.  This,  however,  was  not  thought  to  be  unde- 
sirable. 

Spectator,  then,  may  be  seen  to  have  changed  its 
views  on  various  questions  in  the  field  of  athletics 
from  time  to  time.  Very  often,  these  varied  attitudes 
have  resulted  from  changes  in  college  sentiment, 
sometimes  in  abrupt  transition ;  such  movements  gain- 
ing little  impetus  before  stopped  by  the  inauguration 
of  new  editors.  But  that  is  to  be  expected  in  an  un- 
dergraduate newspaper. 


S  WE  have  noted,  Spectator  from  the  outset  took 


l  \  upon  itself  the  task  of  becoming  the  organ  of 
Student  opinion.    Therefore,  in  anticipation  of  the 


o 


campaign  that  President  Barnard  was  to  start  two 
years  later  for  co-education  at  Columbia,  we  find  the 
paper  derisively  commenting  on  the  whole  project: 
"Swearing  and  smoking  would  have  to  go 
to  the  School  of  Mines,  and  we  should  all 
have  to  be  'dear  Georges'  and  'dear  Rich- 
ard Augustuses/  in  the  'sweet  bye  and  bye'. 
Dancing  would  have  to  be  forbidden,  and 
in  short,  our  whole  college  would  be  over- 
turned from  its  very  foundation.    All  this 
would  be  fun  for  us,  but  trouble  for  others, 
we  mean  the  tutors  and  young  professors, 
they,  the  bashful  ones,  who  would  lose  their 
positions  if  co-education  came  to  Columbia. 
For  them  we  make  this  appeal  to  the  trustees 
of  this,  our  blessed  temporary  home,  that 
never  while  we  live  may  the  female  sex 
darken  our  doors  or  plunge  the  professors 
into  troublesome  forgetfulness." 
However,  a  "Collegiate  Course  for  Women"  was 
established  in  connection  with  the  University,  but 
separate  from  the  College,  several  years  later.  Then, 
in  1889,  a  new  department  was  added  to  the  Univer- 
sity  with   the   establishment   of    Barnard  College, 
named  in  honor  of  President  Barnard,  who  had  died 
earlier  in  the  year,  before  he  could  see  his  original 
idea  carried  out  even  in  this  modified  form.  And 
Spectator,  of  course,  hailed  the  foundation  of  the  new 
institution  as   another  of  the  innumerable  turning 
points  in  Columbia  history. 

The  interest  of  student  editors  in  the  educational 
system  in  which  they  find  themselves  continues  to  be 


important.  Thus  we  find  that  in  1909  a  plea  was 
made  for  a  program  of  studies  with  fewer  electives. 
Two  years  of  required  work  and  then  optional  courses 
in  a  previously  elected  field  of  study  for  the  remainder 
of  the  time  is  the  plan  advocated.  Again  in  1926  we 
find  Spectator  requesting  a  change.  That  the  average 
student  is  too  immature  to  know  what  he  needs  and 
wants  and  that  he  is  likely  to  stray  from  the  "straight 
and  narrow,"  finishing  college  with  the  realization  that 
his  time  has  been  wasted,  was  the  content  of  the  more 
recent  editorials.  The  officials,  said  Spectator,  should 
not  allow  such  a  thing  to  happen,  it  is  within  their 
power  to  arrange  the  program  in  such  a  way  that  mere 
exposure  to  education  will  penetrate  the  student  mind 
and  do  him  good. 

As  we  speak  of  Spectator  saying  this  and  that,  we 
must  remember  that  because  changing  editors  have 
had  contradictory  ideas,  Spectator  can  also  say  that 
and  this.  Thus  we  see  editors  in  the  interval  between 
1909  and  192G  disagreeing  with  the  policies  adopted 
in  these  two  years,  complaining  that  the  great  num- 
ber of  required  courses  gave  the  student  too  little  lib- 
trtv  in  making  up  his  program. 

As  we  look  at  the  College  of  today  we  wonder  how 
the  student  can  complete  his  academic  requirements 
and  still  support  and  carry  on  the  numerous  extra- 
curricular activities.  That  same  problem  resulted  in 
1911  in  one  of  the  most  strenuous  campaigns  ever 
concocted  in  Spectator's  editorial  columns.  Feeling 
that  work  in  these  outside  activities  was  decidedly 
beneficial  to  the  student,  Spectator  invented  an  ingen- 
ious  plan   whereby  leaders   in   important  activities 


would  be  given  college  credit  for  extra-curricular 
work.  After  months  devoted  to  winning  over  the 
Campus  to  its  stand.  Spectator  succeeded  in  convinc- 
ing fifty-three  members  of  the  College  Forum  that  its 
plan  was  in  part  worthwhile.  However,  only  editors 
and  debaters  would  be  included  in  the  select  group. 
An  equal  number  opposed  the  idea,  so  the  fate  of  the 
plan  rested  with  President  Butler,  the  chairman  of  the 
meeting.  He  sided  with  Spectator. 

With  the  endorsement  of  the  Forum  and  of  the 
President  the  plan  went  to  the  Committee  on  Instruc- 
tion for  final  action.  It  was  voted  down  on  the 
grounds  that  faculty  supervision  of  student  activities 
would  impair  them,  but  Spectator  arrived  at  different 
conclusions.  Faculty  supervision,  it  was  claimed, 
would  result  in  straightforward  discussion  of  the  stu- 
dent enterprises,  which  is  preferable  to  rumored  and 
whispered  criticism.  However,  Spectator  finally  ac- 
quiesced and  "College  Credit  for  College  Work" 
ceased  to  grace  the  foot  of  each  editorial  column. 

A  short-lived  campaign  for  the  abolition  of  final 
examinations  in  some  courses  and  the  exemption  from 
all  finals  of  students  who  had  maintained  an  aver- 
age grade  of  B  was  started  in  February,  1923.  Stu- 
dent Board  became  very  much  interested  in  the  pro- 
posal and  called  meetings  of  all  the  classes,  at  which 
it  was  decided  by  almost  unanimous  votes  that  the 
undergraduates  should  petition  the  Faculty  for  the  de- 
sired change.  At  a  meeting  of  the  Committee  on  In- 
struction held  later  in  the  year  the  question  was  dis- 
cussed and  a  verdict  was  returned  in  favor  of  the  pre- 
vailing system. 


Spectator  can  claim  the  distinction  of  effecting  a  re- 
form in  the  curriculum  by  the  publication  of  a  single 
edit.  For,  in  the  Fall  of  1925,  Spectator  pointed  out 
that  there  was  no  chemistry  course  which  a  person  de- 
siring a  liberal  education  might  take,  one  which  would 
not  give  him  the  subject  in  too  technical  a  form.  The 
next  college  catalogue  made  announcement  of  just 
such  a  course. 

 o  

THROUGHOUT  the  years  of  its  existence,  Spec- 
tator has  concerned  itself  with  not  only  these  more 
important  building,  athletic  and  educational  problems, 
but  has  from  time  to  time  proposed  miscellaneous 
changes  in  the  existing  order  of  things. 

One  of  these  was  the  founding  of  an  Intercollegiate 
Press  Association.  The  presentation  of  this  idea  in 
May,  1879,  aroused  direct  favorable  comments  and 
recommendations  from  twenty  college  papers.  If 
Spectator  did  nothing  further,  it  at  least  put  this  idea, 
which  has  since  been  very  successfully  carried  out,  into 
the  minds  of  other  college  publications  for  the  first 
time. 

It  was  evidently  a  quaint  old  custom  to  signify  the 
end  and  beginning  of  all  classes  at  the  49th  Street 
school  in  the  early  years  by  the  janitor's  blowing  a 
whistle  on  the  center  grounds.  The  following  is  taken 
from  an  editorial  in  1879: 

"This  is  a  great  nuisance  for  which,  in  this 
time  of  collegiate  progress  and  improvement, 
some  substitution  should  be  made.  The  whis- 
tle is  noisy,  unmusical,  and  ought  to  be  abol- 
ished. Besides  all  this,  there  is  an  old  law, 


which  positively  forbids  the  blowing  of  any 
whistle  on  the  college  grounds ;  this  should 
be  taken  in  hand  by  the  faculty,  and  the  jan- 
itor should  be  severely  punished  for  the  non- 
observance  of  a  statute.    In  advocating  a 
change,  we  would  suggest  the  advisability  of 
substituting  in  the  whistle's  stead  an  electric 
annunciator.  We  would  call  the  attention  of 
the  trustees  and  faculty  to  this  suggestion, 
and  earnestly  hope  that  this  last  relic  of  bar- 
barism may  be  forever  banished  from  the 
classic  halls  of  Columbia." 
Just  what  the  immediate  results  of  this  plea  were 
is  hard  to  ascertain,  but  at  least  the  evil  has  been 
eliminated  today. 

Perhaps  Columbia  College  is  selfish.  One  is  apt  to 
get  that  impression  after  reading  the  columns  of  its 
papers.  The  editorials,  while  often  commenting  on 
University  affairs  in  general,  deal,  as  is  evident  thus 
far,  more  specifically  with  college  problems.  This 
attitude  of  "College  first"  can  be  clearly  seen  in 
Spectator's  protest  against  the  action  of  the  Board  of 
Trustees  in  1902,  of  making  recipients  of  fellowships 
and  scholarships  subject  to  duty  as  proctors  in  ex- 
aminations. The  newspaper  said  that  scholarships 
would  be  considered  somewhat  in  the  light  of  punish- 
ments rather  than  awards  for  merit  if  this  were  done. 
However,  when  the  officials  explained  later  that  there 
were  forty-eight  graduate  students  holding  University 
fellowships,  thus  making  the  chances  of  calling  upon 
a  college  man  for  this  task  very  remote,  Spectator  de- 
clared that  this  was  a  satisfactory  arrangement.  The 


fact  that  the  proctoring  would  only  be  done  by  stu- 
dents at  Law  School  or  Freshman  examinations  also 
cooled  Spectator's  temper. 

In  the  earlier  years  of  the  twentieth  century,  be- 
fore the  installation  of  the  Students  Activity  Fee, 
which,  incidentally,  was  secured  through  the  efforts  of 
Spectator  in  the  last  decade,  Spectator  depended  for 
its  existence  on  individual  subscriptions.  The  import- 
ance of  this  subscription  list  strikes  one  as  amusing 
in  the  present  day  light  of  things.  In  1904  Spectator 
said: 

"We  wish  the  men  who  told  the  editors  of 
Spectator  that  they  were  not  subscribers 
when  presented  with  bills  would  call  at  the 
office  and  see  their  subscription  blanks  .  .  . 
Last  year  nearly  one-fifth  of  our  subscribers 
were  thus  afflicted  with  loss  of  memory.  This 
year,  we  are  glad  to  say,  the  mental  capacity 
of  our  readers  shows  a  great  increase." 
Editorial  notes  of  this  sort  were  frequent.  One  won- 
ders how  successful  the  following  plan  was: 

"A  copy  of  Spectator  will  be  left  in  the 
mail  boxes  of  all  members  of  the  Faculty  and 
teaching  staff  every  morning  until  notice  to 
discontinue  is  received.  We  shall  assume 
that  every  instructor  who  does  not  send  us 
such  a  notice  considers  himself  a  sub- 
scriber." 

This  appeared  in  eleven  successive  issues,  but  it  is 
hard  to  believe  that  the  Faculty  caught  the  spirit  of 
the  thing. 


Just  as  the  nature  of  the  College  course  has  been 
a  primary  concern  of  Spectator  throughout  the  years, 
so  too,  has  the  paper  interested  itself  in  the  fraternity 
situation.  Back  in  the  Seventies,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, fraternity  friction  was  partly  responsible  for 
the  foundation  of  the  newspaper.  Down  through  the 
years  there  are  references  to  the  worth  and  practi- 
cality of  fraternities,  but  these  are  only  sporadic,  and 
it  is  not  until  recent  years  that  any  real  interest  is 
shown  in  the  topic — and  then  it  confined  itself  to  a 
discussion  of  rushing  agreements. 

Fourteen  years  ago  amendments  to  the  Interfrat- 
ernity  Agreement  were  suggested  which  would  have 
established  practically  the  same  system  as  is  in  vogue 
at  the  present  time,  but  no  action  was  taken  by  the 
Council. 

The  first  real  campaign  in  connection  with  frater- 
nities was  instituted  in  the  Spring  of  1922,  when  it 
was  thought  advisable  to  regulate  rushing  because  of 
the  chaotic  condition  of  affairs  at  that  time.  However, 
it  was  not  until  March  of  the  following  year  that  Spec- 
tator had  a  chance  to  comment  editorially  on  the  adop- 
tion of  an  agreement: 

"The  step  will  not  only  be  a  credit  to  the 
Columbia  fraternities  but  it  will  constitute 
a  real  benefit  to  the  College  by  aiding  in  the 
proper  development  of  the  various  chapters 
and  in  the  more  uniformly  fortunate  plac- 
ing of  new  men." 
The  step  referred  to  consisted  in  postponing  the  date 
at  which  a  Freshman  could  be  pledged. 

The  Fall  of  1924  saw  the  most  important  drive  for 


revisions  in  the  Interfraternity  Agreement.  After 
running  an  editorial  on  the  front  page  captioned 
"How  Long,  Oh  Lord?"  the  editor  takes  up  the  dis- 
advantages both  to  the  Freshmen  and  the  fraternities 
under  the  existing  pact.  It  makes  for  hoodwinking, 
he  says,  and  allows  deception  on  both  sides  by  the 
more  adroit.  Other  prominently  displayed  editorials 
brought  the  discussion  to  a  head  and  the  completely 
reorganized  agreement  was  adopted.  And  then  Spec- 
tator feels  that 

"Columbia  must  employ  its  every  talent 
towards  guaranteeing  the  worthy  utilization 
of  the  document  which  has  been  introduced 
after  so  many  years  of  endeavor." 

That  troublesome  period  of  American  journalism, 
between  the  start  of  the  World  War  and  the  entrance 
of  America  into  the  conflict  had  its  effect  on  Spectator. 
The  paper  clearly  reflects  the  changing  viewpoints 
during  the  war.  Soon  after  the  war  had  started  in 
1914,  a  strong  anti-militaristic  editorial  came  out, 
and  the  editors  were  inclined  toward  the  peace-at- 
any-price  attitude.  A  representative  to  cover  Euro- 
pe an  developments  on  Henry  Ford's  famous  Peace 
Ship  was  selected  and  he  wrote  a  series  of  articles  of 
a  highly  sarcastic  tone  when  he  returned. 

The  tide  of  sentiment  had  turned,  however,  by  the 
time  the  next  editorial  was  written  on  the  subject,  in 
Marc  h,  1918,  and  entitled,  "IF  WAR  COMES."  The 
University  was  evidently  looking  forward  to  partici- 
pation in  the  conflict,  for  militaristic  editorials  appear- 
ing in  those  chaotic  days  commended  the  decision 
of  President  Butler  that  degrees  would  be  given  as  of 


April  2,  without  further  examinations,  to  Seniors  who 
desired  to  enlist. 

In  November,  the  Students  Army  Training  Corps 
Spectator  was  issued,  appearing  but  twice  a  week  and 
published  by  the  officers  in  charge  of  the  Columbia 
contingent.  This  lasted  until  February,  1919. 

Soon  after  the  war  days  were  over,  the  proposed 
residence  rule,  which  would  compel  all  Freshman  and 
Sophomores  to  live  at  the  University,  became  a  potent 
source  of  discussion.  This  rule  is  no  longer  enforced. 
However,  when  in  October,  1919,  it  first  came  up, 
Spectator  asked: 

"Why  is  it  desirable?  To  build  up  in  Co- 
lumbia a  large  body  of  undergraduates  who 
are  interested  primarily  in  the  College,  re- 
side in  it,  and  form  a  College  community  sim- 
ilar to  those  in  smaller  colleges.  .  .  Colum- 
bia. .  .  .is  located  in  a  city  where  it  has  to 
compete  with  attractions  of  all  kinds.  Over 
a  third  of  the  College  is  non-resident.  .  .  ." 
The  feeling  abated  with  the  realization  that  Colum- 
bia could  not  enforce  a  rule  of  that  sort  without  rais- 
ing a  serious  housing  problem. 

Many  of  Spectator's  present-day  contemporaries 
have  been  energetic  in  their  efforts  to  abolish  com- 
pulsory chapel.  Long  before  Spectator  saw  the  light 
of  day  Columbia  had  given  the  student  the  privilege 
of  optional  attendance.  But  in  1904,  when  the  new 
chapel  was  completed,  Spectator  came  out  in  favor 
of  compulsory  attendance  at  chapel  services,  not  for 
religious  purposes,  however,  but  simply  to  bring  the 
College  together  and  increase  college  spirit.  Appar- 


ently  the  suggestion  was  popular  only  with  this  one 
editor,  for  further  mention  of  the  scheme  is  not  made. 

The  landscape  gardener  at  Morningside  Heights,  or 
rather,  the  lack  of  one,  has  caused  many  Spectator 
editors  to  set  up  the  cry  for  the  addition  of  a  man  of 
this  capacity  to  the  staff  of  the  Department  of  Build- 
ings and  Grounds.  Most  of  the  pleas  have  been  writ- 
ten with  the  end  in  view  of  making  a  "Campus  Beau- 
tiful" out  of  the  "Asphalt  Campus."  One  that  ap- 
peared in  January,  1925,  pointed  out  the  desolateness 
of  Columbia's  home: 

"  'Only  God  can  make  a  tree,'  said  Joyce 
Kilmer,  Columbia's  greatest  poet.  .  .  .This 
remark  was  evidently  fetched  from  the  vasty 
deep  of  experience  common  to  all  Columbia 
men.  Through  four  years  at  College  the  idea 
of  a  tree  burgeoned  in  the  soul  of  a  poet  as 
he  walked  up  and  down  and  to  and  fro  upon 
the  College  asphalt  in  search  of  an  actual 
tree.  The  persistence  of  the  ideal  tree  in  his 
thoughts  argues  the  vigor  of  his  imagination 
....  it  is  true  that  only  God  can  make  a 
tree  and  that  any  attempt  to  do  likewise 
would  be  extremely  irregular,  but  the  De- 
partment of  Buildings  and  Grounds  need  not 
be  discouraged.  It  can  at  least  transplant 
one." 

College  editors  have  always  complained  about  the 
custom  of  metropolitan  dailies  of  distorting  or  plac- 
ing undue  emphasis  on  news  of  the  universities  and 
bitterness  has  often  characterized  editorial  comment. 
Columbia  la  no  exception.  An  editor  in  the  Eighties 


called  The  Times  to  task  for  its  statement  that  Col- 
umbia had  no  college  spirit  because  the  New  York 
police  were  not  afraid  to  break  up  class  rushes.  Spec- 
tator asks  if  "we  need  be  rowdies  and  thugs  to  prove 
that  we  love  our  Alma  Mater."  Early  in  the  present 
century  Spectator  suggests  that  this  embellishment  of 
news  be  prevented  by  the  establishment  of  some  of- 
ficial bureau  of  the  University  which  would  handle  the 
publicity  matters  for  the  public  press.  Again  in  later 
years  this  topic  was  discussed.  Finally  the  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Information  was  installed,  (but  Spec- 
tator still  finds  fault  with  the  methods  of  the  metro- 
politan press  in  making  sensational  news  out  of  harm- 
less little  happenings.) 

Spectator  has  traditions  which  are  sacred;  editor- 
ials which  have  been  living  for  no  one  is  quite  sure 
how  long  but  which  reappear  year  in  and  year  out, 
whether  your  managing  board  be  Guelf  or  Ghibelline. 
To  omit  the  oldest  of  these  from  this  book  would  be, 
— well,  here  it  is: 

THE  MIDNIGHT  HOUR 

Midnight  sessions  are  among  the  most  enjoyable 
experiences  in  college  life.  No  class  room  discussion 
can  possibly  take  the  place  of  the  friendly,  rambling, 
soul  revealing  sort  of  argument  that  most  of  us  carry 
in  our  memories  as  the  choicest  part  of  our  under- 
graduate days.  Count  not  that  time  lost,  which  is 
stolen  from  studies  and  dull,  profitable  education  to 
drag  discussion  through  interminable  windings  while 
the  room  is  filled  with  the  atmosphere  of  philosophy 
and  tobacco  smoke,  and  the  hands  of  the  alarm  clock, 


which  is  to  ring  at  seven,  slowly  move  around  to  four 
o'clock  in  the  morning. 

That  is  the  time  when  friendship  is  tested  and  tem- 
pered, when  tolerance  and  fair-mindedness  are  taxed 
to  the  limit,  when  Utopian  schemes  are  advanced  to 
reform  religion,  college  politics,  or  the  social  system. 
That  is  the  time  when  generous  or  impracticable  im- 
pulses have  full  sway,  when  man  meets  man  without 
the  deceiving  mask  of  manner  and  custom,  on  a  basis 
of  complete  acceptance  and  equality.  That  is  the 
time  when  a  man  forgets  that  he  has  always  consid- 
ered it  immodest  to  expose  his  own  feelings  and  be- 
liefs, and  when  he  speaks  the  thoughts  that  are  in 
his  mind  with  full  assurance  of  understanding.  That 
is  the  time  when  friends  are  made  whom  we  mean  to 
keep  through  life. 

Finally,  the  conversation  lags  and  dulls,  and  the 
host  shows  by  nods  and  yawns  that  he  is  sleepy,  and 
he  opens  the  door  to  say  "Good  night,"  with  a  lack  of 
politeness  that  at  any  other  time  would  arouse  resent- 
ment. One  then  takes  his  feet  off  the  furniture  and 
dumps  the  ashes  from  his  pipe  on  the  floor,  depart- 
ing to  leave  the  cool  night  wind  to  blow  away  the 
tobacco  smoke,  and  the  host  to  snatch  a  few  hours' 
sleep  before  daylight. 

The  midnight  hour  is  the  supposed  mythical  edu- 
cation one  gets  from  heart-to-heart  contact  with  his 
fellows.  It  is  the  course  in  human  psychology  that  is 
not  based  on  scientific  laws  nor  book  theorems;  it  is 
the  period  of  broadening  one's  mind,  intellect,  and 
most  of  all,  sympathy.  If  there  is  one  thing  in  a  col- 
lege education  that  the  commuter  misses  it  is  that 


learning  acquired  from  midnight  hours  of  discussion, 
confiding,  and  confession.  It  is  that  hour  of  life  with 
one's  associates  that  should  make  the  parent  and  the 
students  themselves  realize  what  they  are  losing  by 
living  at  home  away  from  the  atmosphere  and  con- 
tact of  the  human-feeling  of  the  College. 


RECORD  OF  MANAGING  BOARDS 


1877-1878 

FREDERICK  W.  HOLLS  '78,  Editor-in-Chief 
J.  FISCHER  '78,  Managing  Editor 
CHARLES  H.  CROWE  '78,  Managing  Editor 

1878-  79 

HENRY  G.  PAINE  '79,  Managing  Editor 
WILLIAM  F.  MORGAN  '80,  Business  Editor 

1879-  80 

WILLIAM  S.  SLOAN  '81,  Managing  Editor 
WILLIAM  H.  TAYLOR  '80,  Business  Editor 

1880-  81 

REGINALD  H.  SAYRE  '81,  Managing  Editor 
CHARLES  A.  MORAN  '81,  Business  Manager 
F.  BENEDICT  HERZOG  '81,  Art  Editor 

1881-  82 

HERBERT  L.  SATTERLEE  '83,  Managing  Editor 
JOHN  E.  de  RUYTER  '83,  Business  Manager 
A.  L.  MANTERRE  '83,  Business  Manager 

1882-  83 

WILLIAM  S.  SLOAN  '82,  Managing  Editor 
C.  A.  REED  '84,  Business  Manager 

1883-  84 

CHARLES  H.  MAPES  '85,  Managing  Editor 
GRANT  SQUIRES  '85,  Business  Manager 

1884-  85 

GRANT  SQUIRES  '85,  Managing  Editor 

EDWARD  J.  MILHAU  '85,  Financial  Manager 

GUY  RICHARDS  '85,  Business  Manager 

ED.  LIDDON  PATTERSON  '86,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 

1885-  86 

LINCOLN  CROMWELL  '86,  Managing  Editor 
GUY  RICHARDS  '87,  Business  Manager 
BENSON  S.  SLOAN  '88,  Financial  Manager 

1886-  87 

ROBERT  C.  SANDE  '87,  Managing  Editor 
PERCY  F.  HALL  '88,  Managing  Editor 
CLARENCE  H.  YOUNG  '87,  Business  Manager 
JAMES  ROBB  '89,  Business  Manager 


1887-88 


GEORGE  F.  LITTLE  '88,  Managing  Editor 
SAMUEL  W.  ANDREWS,  Jr.  '90,  Business  Manager 
WILLIAM  J.  WARBURTON  '88,  Business  Manager 
WILLIAM  SHILLABER,  Jr.  '89,  Managing  Editor 
HERBERT  MAPES  '90,  Art  Department 

1888-  89 

LEONARD  W.  ELY  '89,  Managing  Editor 

H.  A.  GILDERSLEEVE,  Jr.  '90,  Business  Manager 

1889-  90 

FRANK  W.  CRANE  '90,  Managing  Editor 
CORTLANDT  F.  BISHOP  '91,  Business  Manager 

1890-  91 

VICTOR  MAPES  '91,  Managing  Editor 
CORTLANDT  F.  BISHOP  '91,  Business  Manager 

1891-  92 

WILLIAM  B.  DONNELL  '93,  Managing  Editor 
GEORGE  W.  GIDDINGS  '92,  Business  Manager 

1892-  93 

ARCHIBALD  DOUGLAS  '94,  Managing  Editor 
NORMAN  G.  JOHNSON  '93,  Business  Manager 
HERBERT  T.  WADE  '93.  Assistant  Editor 

1893-  94 

FREDERICK  H.  SILL  '94,  Managing  Editor 
JOSEPH  P.  GRACE  '94,  Business  Manager 

1894-  95 

GUY  W.  CARRYL  '95,  Managing  Editor 
D.  W.  ARMSTRONG,  Jr.  '96,  Managing  Editor 
WALTER  C.  SHOUP  '96,  Business  Manager 
CLARENCE  R.  FREEMAN  '93,  Assisant  Editor 

1895-  96 

ROBERT  G.  McCREA  '96.  Managing  Editor 
GEORGE  R.  BEACH  '97L,  Business  Manager 
ARMITAGE  BRADLEY  '96,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 

1896-  97 

A.  WILLIAM  PUTNAM  '97,  Managing  Editor 
SEYMOUR  FULLER  '97,  Business  Manager 


1897-  98 

JOSEPH  L.  FEARING  '97,  Editor-in-Chief 
MORTIMER  W.  BYERS  '98L,  Editor-in-Chief 
HENRY  G.  HERSHFIELD  '98,  Business  Manager 
STEPHEN  HIGGINSON,  Jr.  '98,  Managing  Editor 
EDWIN  T.  IGLEHART  '98,  Managing  Editor 

1898-  99 

ARTHUR  A.  FOWLER  '99.  Editor-in-Chief 
W.  M.  L.  FISKE,  Jr.  '00,  Editor-in-Chief 
JAMES  A.  EDWARDS  '00,  Business  Manager 
W.  H.  MAXWELL,  Jr.  '00,  Business  Manager 

1899-  00 

HENRY  H.  BURDICK  '00,  Editor-in-Chief 

H.  KELLOCK  '00.  Editor-in-Chief 

W.  ROBERT  QUINN  '00,  Business  Manager 

1900-  01 

JULIAN  C.  HARRISON  '01.  Editor-in-Chief 
M.  HARTLEY  DODGE  '08,  Business  Manager 

1901-  02 

ALLEN  B.  A.  BRADLEY  '02.  Editor-in-Chief 
J.  G.  HOPKINS  '02.  Editor-in-Chief 
GEORGE  C.  ATKINS  '02,  Business  Manager 

1902-  03 

C.  L.  HENDRICKSON  '08.  Editor-in-Chief 

R.  C.  GAIGE  '08,  Editor-in-Chief 

GEORGE  H.  BUTLER,  Jr.  '08,  Editor-in-Chief 

1903-  04 

DONALD  C.  BRACE  '04.  Editor-in-Chief 
ALFRED  HARCOURT  '04.  Editor-in-Chief 
W.  S.  CARPENTER  '04.  Business  Manager 

1904-  05 

WILLIAM  F.  J.  PIEL  '05.  Editor-in-Chief 
FREDERICK  L.  COOPER  '05,  Editor-in-Chit  f 
WILLIAM  B.  DEVrOE  '06,  Business  Manager 

1905-  08 

EDWIN  T.  MAYNARD  '06,  Editor-in-Chief 
WILLIAM  R.  PORTER  '06,  Editor-in-Chief 
FRANK  D.  FACKENTHAL  '06.  Business  Manager 
ROBERT  M.  RICHTER  '06,  Business  Manager 


1906-  07 

HORACE  T.  APLINGTON  '07,  Editor-in-Chief 
HENRY  E.  CHAPIN  '07,  Editor-in-Chief 
JOHN  W.  BRODIX  '07,  Business  Manager 

1907-  08 

FOSTER  WARE  '08,  Editor-in-Chief 
WALTER  G.  BRANDLEY  '08,  Editor-in-Chief 
ANTHONY  ZINK  '09,  Business  Manager 

1908-  09 

V.  K.  WELLINGTON  KOO  '09,  Editor-in-Chief 
JOHN  W.  MELVILLE  '09,  Editor-in-Chief 
HICKMAN  PRICE  '09,  Business  Manager 

1909-  10 

ROBERT  S.  ERSKINE  '10,  Editor-in-Chief 
ROYCE  PADDOCK  '10.  Editor-in-Chief 
CLARENCE  SCHMELZEL  '10,  Business  Manager 

1910-  11 

ERNEST  S.  ROCHE  '11,  Editor-in-Chief 
WINFRED  H.  ZIEGLER  '11,  Business  Manager 

1911-  12 

FREDERICK  CULM  AN  '12,  Editor-in-Chief 
EDWARD  S.  SWAZEY  '12,  Editor-in-Chief 
RAYMOND  E.  BROCK  '12,  Business  Manager 

1912-  13 

JOHN  A.  FITZ  RANDOLPH  '13,  Editor-in-Chief 
FRANKLIN  ROBINSON  '12,  Business  Manager 
GLENN  B.  COYKENDALL  '18,  Business  Manager 

1913-  14 

JOHN  K.  LASHER,  Ja.  '14,  Editor-in-Chief 
ADELBERT  F.  SMITHERS  '14,  Editor-in-Chief 
ALVIN  L.  GRAHAM  '14,  Business  Manager 

1914-  15 

LESTER  C.  DANIELSON  '15,  Editor-in-Chief 
FRANKLIN  G.  DUNHAM  '13,  Editor-in-Chief 
ARTHUR  M.  EAST  '15,  Business  Manager 
ARTHUR  T.  RABB,  Jr.  '15,  Managing  Editor 

1915-  16 

JAMES  W.  ALLISON,  Jr.  '16,  Editor-in-Chief 
MORRIS  P.  SCHAFFER  '17L,  Business  Manager 
W.  GUERNSEY  FREY  '16,  Managing  Editor 


1916-  17 

HERBERT  A.  SCHWARZ  '17,  Editor-in-Chief 
JAMES  R.  HARRISON  '17,  Editor-in-Chief 
HOWARD  W.  PALMER  '17,  Editor-in-Chief 
ROBERT  A.  REESE,  18L,  Business  Manager 
CHARLES  G.  PROFFITT  '17,  Advertising  Manager 

1917-  18 

THOMAS  G.  SCHAEDLE  '18,  Editor-in-Chief 
ROBERT  L.  LOISEAUX  '18,  Editor-in-Chief 
E.  STORY  HALLOCK  '18,  Editor-in-Chief 
HORACE  H.  NAHM  '19S,  Business  Manager 
FRANCIS  W.  ROGERS  '19,  Managing  Editor 

1918-  19 

ROBERT  M.  VOGEL  '19,  Editor-in-Chief 
WALLACE  J.  MILLER  '19,  Editor-in-Chief 
HAROLD  J.  CONE  '19,  Business  Manager 
WALTER  A.  FUNCKE  '19,  Business  Manager 
CARL  F.  KAYAN  '19,  Circulation  Manager 
HERBERT  M.  ROGERS  '19,  Associate  Editor 

1919-  20 

FREDERIC  P.  BENEDICT  '20,  Editor-in-Chief 
JACK  LITT  '20,  Business  Manager 
ARTHUR  D.  SCHWARZ  '20,  Managing  Editor 
EARLE  M.  SIMONSON  '20,  Associate  Managing  Editor 

1920-  21 

NICHOLAS  M.  McKNIGHT  '21,  Editor-in-Chief 
WILLIAM  H.  MATTHEWS  '21,  Business  Manager 
GEORGE  B.  BIGGS  '21,  Managing  Editor 
J.  HOWARD  CARLSON  '21,  Advertising  Manager 
DAVID  Z.  ANDREWS  '21,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 

1921-  22 

WARREN  M.  SQUIRES  '22,  Editor-in-Chief 

WILFRED  L.  BLANCHET  '22,  Business  Manager 

RALPH  A.  FREED  '22,  Managing  Editor 

HOLBERT  W.  KECK  '22,  Advertising  Manager 

IRVING  E.  FERRIS,  Jr.  '22,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 

E.  JOHN  LONG  '22,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 

1922-  23 

FLOYD  W.  TAYLOR  '28,  Editor-in-Chief 
HOWARD  R.  MEYER  '23,  Business  Manager 
H.  LINCOLN  ROTHSCHILD  '23,  Managing  Editor 
W.  J.  FARRELL  '23,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 


1923-  24 

ALFRED  D.  WALLING  '23,  Editor-in-Chief 
ERWIN  D.  TUTHILL  '24,  Business  Manager 
THEODORE  M.  BERNSTEIN  '24,  Managing  Editor 
MITCHELL  A.  HOROWITZ  '24,  Advertising  Manager 
CHARLES  D.  BENNETT  '24,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 
EDWARD  T.  MCCAFFREY  '24,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 

1924-  25 

RICHMOND  B.  WILLIAMS  '25,  Editor-in-Chief 
GEORGE  E.  HUMBERT  '25,  Business  Manager 
FERDINAND  KUHN,  Jr.  '25,  Managing  Editor 
SAMUEL  R.  FELLER  '25,  Advertising  Manager 
WILLIAM  Y.  TINDALL  '25,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 

1925-  26 

HUGH  J.  KELLY  '26,  Editor-in-Chief 
SAMUEL  W.  LAMBETH  '26,  Business  Manager 
CHARLES  H.  MUELLER  '26,  Managing  Editor 
EDWARD  M.  BRATTER  '26,  Advertising  Manager 
ROBERT  B.  CAPRON  '26,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 

1926-  27 

CLIFFORD  E.  NOBES  '27,  Editor-in-Chief 

WILLIAM  E.  PETERSEN  '27,  Business  Manager 

GEORGE  T.  SCRIBA  '27,  Managing  Editor 

DEWITT  E.  UNTERMEYER  '27,  Advertising  Manager 

PHILLIP  B.  THURSTON  '27,  Assistant  Managing  Editor 


